9911796707
TMI Blog1953 (2) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he plaintiff's agents and the consignment was booked at railway risk except in respect of 5 put of the 85 bales. The goods-did not reach their destination as about the middle of August 1947 there were serious disturbances, and riots in the Punjab. Correspondence ensued, in the course of which the Chief Commercial. Manager of the North Western Railway, Lahore, stated that the wagon No. 34,773 in which these-bales of cloth were loaded was looted near Mour on 23 August, 1947, and that the loss was caused-by circumstances beyond the control of the railway administration. Ultimately the plaintiff filed this suit on 20 September, 1950, after giving the requisite notice to the defendant Under Section 80, Civil P. C. In para. 7 of the plaint the plaintiff based his cause of action on loss suffered by him by reason of wrongful detention and/or non-delivery of the bales-and in the alternative on wrongful conversion, of the bales. He also pleaded that loss was caused, to him, as a result of the misconduct of the servants and officers of the railway administration. In para. 9 of the plaint it is stated that no notice-under Section 77, Railways Act was necessary as that section did not app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s tendered in evidence mentioned that the bulk of the goods were booked "ORZ", meaning "at owners rise in Form "Z". He admitted the signature of this note of the mukadam employed by Murlidhar Mohanlal. The risk-note in "Form Z" has not been tendered in evidence before me but the forwarding note refers to the same, and it is not seriously argued before me that the bulk of the goods were sent otherwise than under risk note "Z". Although in the plaint it is stated that the goods were sent at railway risk the plaintiff did not make any attempt to show that it was so. 6. On the evidence, both oral and documentary, there is no doubt that these goods were consigned from Bombay on or about 4 August, 1947, under the risk-notes "Z" and "A" as alleged by the defendant. There is also no doubt that the goods were never delivered at the destination, and that after making inquiries the railway administration gave intimation to the plaintiff that the goods had been loaded in wagon No. 34,773, which wagon was looted near Mour on or about 23 August, 1947. Mr. H. V. Shah, learned counsel for the plaintiff, has relied on a letter dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a third letter which also form part of exh. D. The letter, dated 15 December, 1947, addressed by the Liaison Officer, (Textiles) Pakistan to the Chief Traffic Manager, B.B. & C.I. Railway, Bombay, states that along with that letter was enclosed a copy of a letter received from one Sayad A. M. Wazir All in connection with despatch of cloth to the Province of west Punjab. The letter further states that the copy-letter is self explanatory. The copy so enclosed is of a letter purporting to be signed by Sayad A. M. Wazir All and is addressed to the Liaison Officer of the Government of Pakistan. This letter only states that 85 bales of cotton piece goods were booked from Bombay under the railway receipt in suit and that till the date of the letter viz,, 11 December, 1947, nothing had been known about the consignment. The letter proceeds to request the railway administration to locate the consignment. I fail to see how these two letters even read together can amount to a notice as required under Section 77. Railways Act. All that is relied on is a copy of a letter which is enclosed with the letter of the Liaison Officer of 15 December, 1947. Besides the letters cannot be said to have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section of the Railways Act to qualify, alter or modify the ordinary meaning of the word "loss" as used here, the word must, in my opinion, include loss arising from whatever cause. A number of decisions were cited at the bar. The only decision of the Bombay High Court to which my attention was drawn was in a case which fell under Section 75 of the Act. I shall later on in my judgment have to refer to that decision. All the other decisions which were cited or mentioned were of other High Courts. Those decisions show considerable diversity of judicial opinion not only among the various High Courts but also among Judgments of the same Court on the meaning of the word "loss" as used in Section 77 and I do not feel bound to tread again the weary road of examining those cases. In some of those decisions the view has been expressed that the word "loss" in Section 77 does not include "loss occasioned by non-delivery". In some other decisions the view has been taken that the section does not apply to cases of wrongful detention or conversion. A contrary view is expressed in some other decisions. Some of these cases proceed on the footing that a str ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without more the intention of the law-giver and is decisive of it and the Court will neither add to nor subtract from what the Legislature has laid down. In such a case the Court will certainly not put a meaning on the plain words of the section which is different from the grammatical and obvious meaning, for that would be to make laws. The words "compensation for loss...." cannot, In my opinion, be said to be wide in the abstract; nor can they be said to be more or less elastic. It is no doubt a well-known canon of construction that all words, if they be general and not express and precise, are to be restricted to the fitness of the particular subject-matter. But I do not at all see how it can be said that the subject-matter with reference to which these words are used require that when goods are delivered to a carrier as such and any question of compensation for nondelivery arises, the loss contemplated should be taken as excluding loss caused by any tortious conduct of the carrier or his servants and officers. Besides I do not think that the words under consideration require or admit of any restriction to suit the subject-matter. I have, therefore, to interpret the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e up before the High Court on a reference made by the Small Causes Court at Bombay for the opinion of the High Court and the judgment only contains the findings recorded by the High Court. Even so, the decision was that the words "loss", destruction or deterioration" in Section 75 included loss caused by the criminal misappropriation of the goods by a servant of the railway administration in charge of the same. This was clearly a case of a claim based on a tort. Prima facie, the word "loss" must be given the same meaning in the series of sections which find place in Chap. 7 of the Act. It has been often said that the true meaning of any passage in a statute is what best harmonises with the subject and with every other passage in the statute. Now, it is true that this was a case under Section 75, Rail-ways Act, but I am unable to seek any particular reason why the word "loss" should have a different meaning in Section 75 than in Section 77, or for the matter of that in Section 80 of the Act. No reason whatever was suggested by learned counsel for the plaintiff to show that the word should have different meanings in Section 77 and in Section 75. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... think the present argument advances the plaintiff's case any further. 15. Also fatal to the plaintiff's case is the bar of limitation. On behalf of the defendant reliance was placed on Articles 30 and 31 of the schedule to the Indian Limitation Act. Both these articles apply to carriers and under both, the period of limitation prescribed is one year. Mr. Madon, learned counsel for the defendant, particularly relied on Art. 31 under which the time from which the period begins to run is stated to be when the goods ought to be delivered. It was the case of the plaintiff himself that in the ordinary course of events these goods should have reached Gujranwalla station on or about 18th August, 1947. Assuming that there should be sufficient margin of time allowed in determining the date when the goods ought to have been delivered and that consideration should be given to the disturbed times, I am at a loss to see how it can be said that the goods ought to have been delivered sometime within one year, or fourteen months (adding two months for giving notice under Section 80, Civil P. C.) of 20th September, 1950, which is the date on which the suit was filed. In my opinion Art. 31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amage arose from the misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration or its servants : provided that in the following cases: (a) Non-delivery of the whole of a consignment or of the whole of one or more packages forming part of a consignment packed in accordance with the instructions laid down in the tariff or, where there are no such instructions, protected otherwise than by paper or other packing readily removable by hand and fully addressed, where such non-delivery is not due to accidents to trains or fire, (b) Pilferage from a package or packages forming part of a consignment properly packed as in (a), when such pilferage is pointed out to the servants of the railway administration on or before delivery, the Railway Administration shall be bound to disclose to the consignor how the consignment was dealt with throughout the time it was in its possession or control, and, if necessary, to give evidence thereof before the consignor is called upon to prove misconduct, but, if misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration or its servants cannot be fairly inferred from such evidence, the burden of proving such misconduct shall lie upon the consignor." Mr. H. V. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
