9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (4) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Master at Kajgaon to receive and forward by passenger train the parcel described therein to Delhi Junction Station at reduced rates as per Risk Note on the reverse signed by him. The consignment was booked at reduced rates. This consignment reached Delhi on 36th October 1948. It appears that between Kajgaon and Itarsi the wagon was attached to 39 Dn. Parcel Train and beyond Itarsi it was attached to a mixed passenger train. In the normal course by passenger train from Kajgaon this wagon should have reached Delhi on 23rd October 1948. On arrival at the Delhi Station the contents of the wagon were found to be damaged and the loss was estimated as of the value of ₹ 2,700/-. 3. On 22nd October 1948, peer Mahomed and Sons signed a Forwarding Note for a wagon-load of plantains from Kajgaon to Delhi By the Forwarding Note the Station Master at Kajgaon was requested to forward the wagon by passenger train. Parcel Way Bill No. 7934/83, dated 22nd October 1948. was obtained in the name Of Peer Mahomed and Sons as consignors and the consignees were the plaintiffs. This consignment was also booked at reduced rates, The wagon was loaded on 22nd October 1948 and between Kajgaon and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contending inter alia that the plaintiffs could not maintain a suit as they were merely consignees acting as commission agents of the consignors and that they were not owners of the goods and as consignees they were entitled only to take delivery of the consignments as agent of the consignors and the plaintiffs nad no causes of action for filing a suit for loss of the consignments. It was also contended that under the Risk Note the Railway administration was absolved from liability, that the claim was barred by the law of limitation and that in any event the compensation claimed was excessive and unreasonable. 7. The learned trial Judge held that the railway administration did not bind itself by agreement to carry the goods by passenger train and that in failing to deliver the goods within a reasonable time the railway administration was not guilty of misconduct or negligence. He also held that no cause of action had accrued to the plaintiffs and that in any event under the Risk Notes the railway administration was exonerated from liability to compensate the plaintiffs for loss that they may have suffered. He observed that the plaintiffs as mere commission agents and consignees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1929 Born 355, it Was held by this court that if a consignment of perishable goods is sent by goods train, when it was agreed between the consignor and the railway administration that the consignment was to be sent by passenger train, a breach of contract is committed bv the railway administration and that the railway administration is liable for loss suffered by the consignor. 9. The next question which falls to be determined Is whether the plaintiffs as consignees of the goods can maintain an action for compensation for damage to the goods. Mr. Kotwal urged that a consignor, a consignee and the endorsee of a railway receipt are entitled to file an action for compensation against the railway administration for loss of consignment. It is not disputed that the consignor being a party to the contract with the railway administration is entitled to file a suit for compensation for loss suffered by him by reason of the breach of contract committed by the railway administration or by reason of misconduct on the part of the railway employees in dealing with the consignment. Again it has been held by this Court in Union of India v. Taherali Isaji. 58 Bom LR 650 , that an endorsee of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the consignee . It is also stated In Article 483 that: although the property in the goods has not passed to the consignee, if he has made a special contract with the carrier for their carriage, or if the consignor has delivered the goods to the carrier as agent for the consignee, the latter is the person to sue; and this may be the case even though the consignor has paid the carrier, for, in the absence of any arrangement to the contrary, the consignor is always liable to pay the carrier. 12. Two propositions appear to be well-settled. The right of action to recover compensation for loss or damage to the goods ordinarily vests in the consignor. Where the goods lost or damaged in transit are the subject-matter of a contract of sale. the owner of the goods may in the absence of a contract to the contrary sue the railway administration. Therefore, a consignee who is in possession of a railway receipt duly endorsed by the consignor may maintain an action for compensation for loss of the goods covered thereby, but he can do so not because he is the consignee but because he is the owner of the goods. A consignor may sue for compensation for loss relying upon the breach of contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision in that case does not support the view contended for by Mr. Kotwal in this case. But the Court in that case relied upon a judgment of the Madras High Court, Madras and Section M. Rly. Co., Ltd. v. Rangaswamy Chetty. AIR 1924 Mad 517, wherein it was observed that a consignee alone could sue for loss caused by non-delivery of goods after the goods had been delivered to the railway company for consignment. After referring to that Judgment, the learned Judge observed that When goods are delivered to a Railway Company for transmission to a buyer, the property in the goods passes to the buyer and any loss that is occasioned thereafter is the loss to the buyer and no loss to the seller, and that the seller having suffered no loss, is not entitled to claim any damages from the Railway Company . That, however, is not a decision in support of the proposition that a bare consignee under a railway receipt may sue the railway administration for loss of the goods. 15. In AIR 1924 Mad 517 the head-note is: Consignee alone can sue for loss caused by the non-delivery of the goods after the goods have been delivered to railway company for consignment. In that case, the consig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loss and that he was entitled merely to his commission in the sale proceeds. He also admitted in his evidence that the railway receipt was never sent to him. Evidently the plaintiffs were not even in possession of the railway receipt and could not be deemed to have become owners of the goods by negotiation of the railway receipt. They had otherwise no interest in the goods as owners and they were not parties to the contract with the railway administration, 19. Mr. Kotwal submitted that when a railway receipt is issued by the railway administration on consignment of goods there is ft tripartite contract between the consignor, the consignee and tha railway administration and that the breach of contract by the railway administration or misconduct of the employees of the railway confers a cause of action upon the consignee, in cur view, this contention cannot be accepted. The contract incorporated in the railway receipt results from acceptance of the Forwarding Note the consignor to the railway administration and which is expressly in the form of a request by it is on acceptance of the Forwarding Note that the railway receipt is issued. It is true that the consignor may direct the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
