LexGOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL versus MUSADDI LAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
r
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
647
interest pendente lite until realisation, the appeals shall
stand dismissed. In view of the substantial failure of
the appeals, the appellant shall pay the costs· in this
Court. One hearing fee.
GOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL
v.
MUSADDI LAL.
(J. L. KAPUR and J. C. SHAH, J.T.)
Railway-Non-delivery of goods-Suit for compensation for
non-delivery, if distinct from compensation for loss, 1iestruction or
deterioration-Notice of claim
for
compensation, if condition
precedent -Limitation from when to run-Indian Railways Act,
I890 (IX of z890), ss. 72 and 77-Indian Limitation Act, x<)08,
Arts. 30, JI.
The respondent served on the Railway Administration a
composite notice under s. 77 of the Indian Railways Act and
under s. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and sued for price of
goods and for Joss on account of non-delivery. The claim was
resisted by the Railway Administration on pleas amongst others
that the suit was not maintainable without an effective notice
under s. 77 of the Railway Act and that. the suit was barred
because at the date of the suit the period of limitation prescribed
by Art. 31 of the Indian Limitation Act had expired.
A full bench of the Allahabad High Court upheld the decree
of the trial court in favour of the respondent holding that a claim
for compensation for non-delivery Of goods was a claim distinct
from the claim for compensation for loss, destruction or deteriora·
tion of the goods, and to· the enforcement of a claim of the
former variety by action in a court of law under s. 77 was not a
condition precedent.
Held, thats. 77 of the Indian Railways Act imposes a restric-
tion on the enforcement of liability declared by s. 72 of the Act
and prescribes a condition precedent to the maintainability of a
claim for compensation for goods lost, destroyed or deteriorated
while in the custody of the railway Administration who are
bailees and not insurer of goods. The section is enacted with a
view to enable the railway administration to make enqniries and
if possible to recover the goods and deliver them to the consignee
and to prevent stale claims. Failure to deliver goods is the con-
sequence of loss or destruction and the cause of action for it is
not distinct from the cause of action for loss or <!estruction,
83
M ~habir Prasad
Rungt•
v.
'nwrga Dalla
Hidayat•llah ].
January 3x.
z96z
Gawrnor-G1n1ral
in Council
v.
Mtuaddi Lal
Shah].
648
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
Held, further, that merely because Arts. 30 and 3I of the
I.ndian Limitation Act prescribe different points of time from
which the limitation is to run for suits against carriers it cannot
be inferred that the claim covered by either article is not for
compensation for loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods;
and the said Arts. 30 and 3r cannot be projected upon ss. 72 and
77 of the Indian Railways Act for holding that suit for compensa-
tion for non-delivery of goods does not fall withins. 77.
The Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Co. Ltd. v.
Haridoss Banmalidoss, {r9r8) l.L.R. 4r Mad. 871, Hilt Sawyers and
Co. v. Secretary of State, {r92r) I.L.R. 2 Lah. r33, Martab Ali v.
Union of India, (1954] 56 Born. L.R. 150, Union of India v.
Mitayagiri Pullappa; I.L.R. [r958] A.P. 323, Assam Bengal
Railway Co. Ltd. v. Radhika Mohan Nath and Others, A.I.R. (1923)
Cal. 397 and Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd. v. Hamir Mull Chha-
gan Mull and Another (r926} I.L.R. 5 Pat. ro6, approved.
Governor-General in Council and Others v. Mahabir Ram and
Another, {r953} I.L.R. I All. 64 and ]ais Ram Ramrekha Das v.
G.I.P. Railway and Another (1929) I.L.R. 8 Pat. 545, overruled.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil
Appeal
No. 313/1956.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated
July 25, 1952, of the Allahabad High Court in Second
Appeal No. 2547of1946.
R. Ganapathy Iyer and T: M. Sen for the appellant
K. P. Gupta, for the respondent.
1961. January 31. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
Slj:AH, J.-On January 30, 1943, Bhola NathSambhu
Ram as agent of the respondent L. Musaddilal deli-
vered a bale of cloth to the railway administration
E. I. Rly. at Agra railway station for carriage by rail-
way to the Chola Station in the E. I. !Uy. The
consignment was accepted by the railway adminis-
tration and a railway receipt was issued in the name
of the consignor Bhola Nath Sambhu Ram. Bhola
Nath Sambhu Ram endorsed the railway receipt inExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.