Skip to content


Kasturibai Bhratar Onkardas Marwadi Vs. G.i.P. Railway Company and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923Bom172; 79Ind.Cas.245
AppellantKasturibai Bhratar Onkardas Marwadi
RespondentG.i.P. Railway Company and ors.
Excerpt:
tort - wrongful detention--measure of damages--extravagant claim--amount awarded substantial--costs. - - the order regarding costs was a perfectly proper order to be made in the circumstances......for an exaggerated claim the railway co., was bound to defend the case. we see, therefore, no reason to allow the case to go further as in no ease do we think, after reading the judgment that the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff could be increased, as not being a proper and sufficient sum. the appeal is dismissed.
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff filed this suit against the G. I. P. Railway Co., and various officials of the Ry. Co., at Bhusawal claiming Rs. 25,000 damages on the ground that she was detained at Bhusawal wrongfully by the Railway Co., and its servants, for refusing to pay excess fares on account of her having traveled in a first class compartment with a second class tickets, The facts are practically admitted. There was a mistake made owing to certain circumstances. The ladies were put into a first class compartment by the officials of the Railway Co., at the Shegaon station between Nagpur and Bhusawal. That fact was not sufficiently recognised when the party arrived at Bhusawal. The Judge has found in favour of the plaintiff. He has considered the question of damages, and has allowed the plaintiff Rs. 1,200 damages from defendants 1, 2, 4, and 7, that is to say the Railway Co, the Railway Guard and the Station Master and the Ticket Collector, at Bhusawal, and Rs. 100 from the Ticket Collector on the ground the he had annoyed and insulted the plaintiff and used improper language. Undoubtedly, the whole case was very unfortunate for all parties. But it is not one of those cases in which vindictive damages could possibly be claimed from the Railway Co., or their servants and on the face of it a demand for Rs. 25,000, even if everything the plaintiff set out to prove had been proved, would be absurd. All that was required was for the Court to show by the amount awarded that it considered that the action of the Railway Co., and their servants could not be justified, and, therefore, it was necessary that a substantial sum should be awarded, and not a nominal sum. We think the amount awarded was a substantial sum, and that the claim as originally made was extravagant. The result would be that the plaintiff would have to pay so much of the costs which were incurred by the defendants owing to the extravagance of her claim. The order regarding costs was a perfectly proper order to be made in the circumstances. The result of her suit has fallen short of the plaintiff's expectation, but it is undoubtedly her own fault in having exaggerated her claim. If she had demanded a reasonable sum of damages against the Railway Co., it is possible that the Railway Co., would have paid without a suit. But the plaintiff having sued for an exaggerated claim the Railway Co., was bound to defend the case. We see, therefore, no reason to allow the case to go further as in no ease do we think, after reading the judgment that the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff could be increased, as not being a proper and sufficient sum. The appeal is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //