LexUNION OF INDIA versus WEST PUNJAB FACTORIES LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
U.'JION OF INDIA
V.
WEST PUNJAB f'ACTORJES LTD.
August 24, 1965
[!'.
B.
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.,
,\1, HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. Sll'll K.
N.
WANCllOO,
AND s. M. SJKR•; JJ.)
A
II
Indian Railways Act, s. 72-Responsibilty of railways for loss of good.<
---Whether continues of delivery not taken within three days of reaching
destination, after which demurrage is payable under zhe rules- Main-
tainabi/ily of suit for damages by consignor of goods when risk not
transferred to consignee-Damages whether payable at contract rate or
('
market rate-Jnreresl whether payable on amou.'lt of dc11nages for peri.c>d
before date of suit.
There was a fire at a railway station in which certain gooili \\'ere
daitroyed.
TY.·\) $tilts \lo'cre filed claiming damage for Joss ot goods by
the soid fire.
The first suit was tiled by a factory which claimed to he
owner of the goods as consignor. The other suit was filed by a consignee
in whose favour the relevant docum.!nts "'ere endorsed.
The Union of
India resisted both the suits. The !rial court and the High Court concur-
ren!ly held that !he loss was due to !he negligence of the Railways. Tho
Union of India appealed 10 this Court.
I>
It was contended on behalf of tho appellant : ( l) The sui:S, a.> filed,
were not maintaa1ahle.
( 2) Jn the fintt suit delivery of the goods had
been made to the consignee and the High Court's finding to tl1c con-
trary was wrong.
(3) Damages should have been awarded at the con·
rrac! rate and not the market rate ( 4 J Interest could not be awarded
for !he period before the suit on the amount of damages decreed. (5) Jn
the second :iUit notice ho.d been given to the consignee that the consign-
ment had arrived on February 23, 1943.
"llle consignee did not come
lo remove !he goods till March 8, 1943 when the fire broke our. and the
liability of the railway administration ceased :ifter the ]apse of reawnablc
time after arrival of the consignment at the railway admioistratjon.
HELD : (i) A railway receipt i3 a document of title to good! C.."'lvcred
by ii, bur from that alone ii does not follow, where !he consignor and
consignee are different, that the consignee is necessarily the owner of
the goods and the consignor in such circun1stanccs can never he the
owner of the goods.
It i~ quite possible fer the consignor to retain title
in the goods himself \i.:hile 1he consignment is booked io the name of
another person.
In the fir!.t of the present !!'Ui!s the risk remainOO with
the consignor according to the agreement of the parries, and it had not
been proved 1ha1 !he consignor had parted with !he property in the
goods. Therefore the suit by he consignor was maintainable. [586 D-H)
In the second !t'.Jit the railway receipt wa~ cndor5ed in the consignee's
favour and the courts helow had concurrco1ly found that the consignfX"
wa, the owner of the goods.
There could therefore be no dispute about
!he maln!ainabili'y of the second suit also. [58¥ DJ
(ii) Though there wa, a token delivery to tho consignee in !he lirsl
~ult as appeared from th'! fact that the raihv:ry receipts had be~n sur~
i:
II
-
•
•
•
A
c
D
..
E
•
F
G
•
"
H
UNION V. W. PUNJAB FACTORIES
581
rendered and the delivery book had been sigaed, there was no real
delirnry by the railway to the consignee.
The goods had not been un-
loaded and were still under the control and cmtody of the railway and
the evidence of the Assistant Goods Clerk was that his permission had
still to be taken before the goods could be actually removed by the
consignee.
The contention in the first suit that the delivery had been
made to the consignee before March 8, 1943 therefore, in the pecuiiar
circumstances of tho case had to fail. [590 C-D]
(iii) 111e High Court rightly calculated the damages on the basis of
the market price on March 8 as it is well settled that it is the market
price at the time the damaa:e occured which is the measure of iliz damages
to be awarded. [590 E-F]
(iv) In the absence of any usage or contract, express or implied, or
of any provision of law to justify the award of interest it is not possible
to award interest by way of damages and therefore no inteterot should
have been awarded in the pn>1ent two suits up to the date of filing of either
suit. [591 A]
Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd. v. Rutlanji Ram, & Ors. 65 I.A. 66,
Seth .Thawardas Pherumal v. Union of India [1955] 2 S.C.R. 48, Union
of India v,, A. L. Ra/lia Ram, [1964Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.