9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (3) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Four suits were filed by Sagauli Sugar Works Limited for recovery of money on account of non delivery of consignments. Two suits were filed by Majhaulia Sugar Works for recovery of money on account of non delivery of two consignments. The suits were filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Motihari in Bihar. 3. The plaintiff's are respondents. The case of the respondents was that goods were booked on 5 September, 1955 to several destinations under railway risk. The goods did not reach the destinations. The respondents alleged that non delivery was on account of gross negligence and misconduct on the part of the Railways. 4. The defence was that the wagons containing the goods in suit along with other wagons were taken on Barg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und of appeals is by certificate against the judgment of the High Court dated 3 September, 1968. 10. One of the contentions raised before the High Court and repeated here is that the High Court should not have relied on an enquiry report into the accident. The High Court held that there was an enquiry under Rule 18 of the Rules made by the Railway Board. The High Court referred to Sections 83 and 84 of the Railways Act. Section 83 provides that if there is any accident attended with loss of human life or grievous hurt with serious injury to property notice shall be given to various persons. Section 84 confers power on the Central Government to make Rules for several purposes including the purpose of prescribing the duties of railway serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not claim any privilege there. Second, the High Court also rightly held that the enquiry report was admissible under Sections 5, 7 and 9 of the Evidence Act The High Court did not go into the question whether it was admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. 12. The High Court further held that the Railways did not examine important witness, viz., the Commander of the ferry who was on the spot when the Barge was in trouble. The High Court held that the Railways suppressed important documents like the marine certificate and the stock register which would have given the life history and the capacity of the Barge. The High Court correctly drew adverse inference against the appellants for non-production of important witnesses and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was at about 2.20 p.m. on 7 September, 1953. Samastipur started towing the barge, went about a mile when the radius rod of Samastipur broke down, Radius rod is a part of the paddle by which a steamer is driven. The radius rod of Samastipur was repaired in due course. It then heaved up its anchor. The anchor of the barge could not be lifted. There was a danger whistle. Rasul, the Sarang of Chapra came with his steamer to the aid of Samastipur. Two officers Lall and Devia hereinbefore mentioned left the matter in the hands of the three sarangs. Lall, the Commander of the Ferry was not examined. The Assistant Machanical Engineer was examined. The High Court found that Rasul did net take the steamer and the barge to the Diara but took the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no suggestion that there was any submerged trees or stone, and the hold was caused because the barge accidentally struck against any such substance. Since the creation of the hole could not be attributed, according to the High Court, to anything unforeseen, it was due to the negligence of the Railway employees. 18. The High Court further found that if the barge had been towed to the Diara, it could not sink. The water, near the Diara must have been shallow so that the wagons upon the barge could not be submerged in the water near it On the other hand, Rasul took the steamer and the barge to a much longer distance and the passage must have taken a considerable time. Besides, the water near the jetty was undoubtedly deep and the wagons w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that as for at possible he who was proved a breach of a bargain to supply what he has contracted to get is to be placed as far as money can do it, in as good a situation as if the contract had been performed. The fundamental basis thus is compensation for the pecuniary loss which naturally flows from the breach. Therefore, the principle is that as far as possible the injured party should be placed in as good a situation as if the contract had been performed, In other words, it is to provide compensation for pecuniary loss which naturally flows from the breach. The High Court correctly applied these principles and adopted the contract price in the facts and circumstances of the case as the correct basis for compensation. 23. For these r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
