9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit by the first petitioner 2. Liability of the railways for short delivery 3. Jurisdiction and appreciation of evidence by the New Trial Bench 4. Limitation period for filing the suits Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Suit by the First Petitioner: The respondents contended that the suit by the first petitioner, the insurance company, was not maintainable. However, it was established that the first petitioner, having satisfied the claim of the second petitioner (the insured), was subrogated to the rights of the second petitioner. The court held, "the first petitioner as the insurer has satisfied the claim of the second petitioner in respect of the short delivery of the goods hence it is subrogated to the rights of the second petitioner." Therefore, the suit filed by the first petitioner was deemed maintainable. 2. Liability of the Railways for Short Delivery: The railways argued that they were not liable for the short delivery as the railway receipt merely stated that the consignment was "said to contain" a certain quantity of goods. The trial court rejected this defense, relying on the principle that the railways are liable where the number of units loaded could be assessed with certainty. The court noted, "the fact that the railway receipts... contain the words SC meaning 'said to contain' will not absolve the railways from liability as the number of bundles could be easily verified." Furthermore, the evidence provided by P.W. 2, detailing the consignment process and the involvement of a railway clerk in the weighment, supported the claim of short delivery. The trial court's findings were upheld, and the railways were held liable for the short delivery. 3. Jurisdiction and Appreciation of Evidence by the New Trial Bench: The New Trial Bench reversed the trial court's decision, stating that the plaintiffs had not discharged the onus of proving the actual number of articles loaded. However, the High Court found that the New Trial Bench had overstepped its jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the New Trial Bench is limited and primarily revisional in nature, not appellate. The court stated, "the jurisdiction of the Judges hearing New Trial applications is limited and the Judges who tried the New Trial Applications in this case have completely ignored the same." The High Court criticized the New Trial Bench for reappreciating the evidence and interfering with the trial court's findings of fact, which were based on proper appreciation of the evidence. 4. Limitation Period for Filing the Suits: The respondents contended that the first two suits were barred by limitation as they were filed more than a year after the open delivery of goods. The court acknowledged that the suits were filed after the one-year limitation period prescribed under Article 31 of the old Limitation Act. However, it was noted that the delay was due to the railways' dilatory tactics after receiving the suit notice. The plaintiffs relied on the certificates of shortage issued by the Station Master as acknowledgments of liability, which the court accepted. The court held, "the certificate of short delivery in each of the first two suits clearly amounts to acknowledgment of liability on the part of the railways." Consequently, the suits were not barred by limitation. Conclusion: The High Court set aside the decrees and judgments of the New Trial Bench and restored the decrees and judgments of the trial court. The petitioners were entitled to costs in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, in addition to the costs awarded by the trial court.
|
