JOINT FAMILY BUSINESS OF RAMCHANDERA SRINAVAS Vs. THE SHAHDARA SHARANPUR LIGHT RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is revision petition No. 181 register No. A -5/1 (Telangana) against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, dated 22 -1 -1949 by which the revision petitioner's suit was dismissed on the ground that it was out of time.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of the learned Advocates of the parties and perused the Judgment under revision. It appears to me that the learned Additional Sessions Judge based his Judgment on - 'Appavoo Chettiar v. S. I Ry. Co, : AIR 1929 Mad. 177 (A) and dismissed it. This Madras case proceeds on the interpretation of illustration (b) of Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act to the effect that when payment was made according to a wrong schedule, it was a mistake of law. This case has been over -ruled by their Lordships of the Privy Council in a Judgment, passed after the Judgment under revision, in -'Shiba Prasad Singh v. Srish Chandra', : AIR 1949 PC 297(B). Their Lordships of the Privy Council have held that if payment is made under a mistake as to the rates it is not a mistake of law but it is a mistake of fact. Thus, the basis of the judgment under revision has been altered.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the respondent then argued that the payment was not illegal. It should be noted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has found distinctly that the payment was illegal. The goods were consigned at Baraut station on S. S. L. Railway. There O. R. R rates prevailed. The goods were consigned to Kachiguda Railway Station which is outside the jurisdiction of S. S. L. Railway. On N. S. Railway the R. R. R. rates prevailed and the rates were higher than the O. R. R. rates. The learned Additional Sessions Judge therefore held that the clerk at the Kachiguda Railway Station who charged at the R. R. R. rates had no authority to do so as he altered the basis of the contract. The learned Advocate for the respondent argued on the authority of - 'Dawood Rowther v. s. I. Rly. Co. Ltd., Trichinapoly', : AIR 1944 Mad 444 (C), that the action of the clerk at the Kachiguda Railway Station was correct inasmuch as he has no authority to charge outside the tariff rates prevailing in N. S. Railway. I do not agree, for the contract was made at Baraut Station and it had to be followed. Any adjustment of the account in respect of the difference of rates is a matter between the railway companies and not a matter as between the parties. The railway company contracts with the party at the rates mentioned in the railway receipt and this has to be followed. I need not cite any authority, for this has been accepted always to be the case. Thus, in my opinion it is quite evident that excessive rates were charged.