1979 (7) TMI 252 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit can be decreed against defendants Nos. 1 and 2.
2. Whether there was actual delivery of goods by the consignor to the railway administration.
3. Whether the railway administrations can be held liable based on fictitious railway receipts.
4. The basic liability of the railway administration as a common carrier under the Indian Railways Act and general law.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the suit can be decreed against defendants Nos. 1 and 2:
The plaintiff's suit was decreed to the extent of Rs. 33,955.50 Paise with interest against defendants Nos. 3 to 6 and dismissed against defendants 1, 2, 7, and 8. The plaintiff appealed for a decree against defendants 1 and 2 but made no such prayer against defendants 7 and 8, who were not even impleaded as parties. Thus, the primary question was whether the suit could be decreed against defendants Nos. 1 and 2.

2. Whether there was actual delivery of goods by the consignor to the railway administration:
The trial court found that the consignments shown in the railway receipts were not delivered for carriage at the forwarding station to the railway administration. The railway receipts were obtained fraudulently by defendants 3 to 6 from the railway servants. The plaintiff paid Rs. 31,308 through the Bank to defendants 3 to 6 against the railway receipts but could not get the goods. The railway administration rebutted the presumption of delivery of goods by showing that the goods were never delivered to them. The Assistant Station Master, who issued the receipts, admitted to making a bogus entry in the loading register, indicating no actual delivery of goods.

3. Whether the railway administrations can be held liable based on fictitious railway receipts:
The court held that the railway administrations could not be held liable based on fictitious railway receipts when the consignor never delivered the goods for carriage. The railway's liability as a common carrier commences only upon actual delivery of goods for carriage. The issuance of railway receipts without actual delivery does not create a contractual liability on the railway administrations.

4. The basic liability of the railway administration as a common carrier under the Indian Railways Act and general law:
The railway's liability as a carrier of goods is outlined in the Indian Railways Act, 1890. The responsibility of the railway as a common carrier commences upon actual delivery of goods for carriage. The Act, as amended, retains the requirement of actual delivery to commence liability. The court cited several precedents affirming that actual delivery of goods is necessary to establish the railway's liability. The court also referenced the general law relating to common carriers, which similarly requires actual delivery of goods to commence liability. The court concluded that without proof of actual delivery, no contract of carriage is established, and thus, no liability can be fastened on the railway administration.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff's suit against the railway administrations was rightly dismissed due to the lack of proof of actual delivery of goods. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.