G.i.P. Railway and anr. Vs. Kunj Behari Lal Sharma - Court Judgment
|Reported in||AIR1926All228; 92Ind.Cas.993|
|Appellant||G.i.P. Railway and anr.|
|Respondent||Kunj Behari Lal Sharma|
carriage of goods - railway company--risk note form h, liability under--loss of goods not urged--protection under risk note--onus of lost--revision--delay in filing petition. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9..........quite right in asserting that the only loss for which the railway can be held accountable under risk note which applies to this case, even in case of wilful negligence must be loss of a complete consignment or of a complete package or packages forming part of such consignment. the decree may, however, be supported on another ground. the plaintiff did not come into court alleging loss. he merely alleged that so much betel-leaves had been booked by the railway and that the full amount had not been delivered. there is a long series of cases commencing with ghelabhai punsi v. e.i. ry. co, air 1921 bom 443 and including several cases of this court, e.g. e.i. railway co. v. kishan lal tirkha mal air. 1924 all 7 and e.i. railway co. v. gopi krishna kashi prasad air 1924 all 8 as well as e.i......
1. This is a revision against a Small Cause Court decree awarding compensation for short delivery of betel leaves consigned by the G.I.P. and B.B. and C.I. Railway Companies. The applicants are quite right in asserting that the only loss for which the Railway can be held accountable under risk note which applies to this case, even in case of wilful negligence must be loss of a complete consignment or of a complete package or packages forming part of such consignment. The decree may, however, be supported on another ground. The plaintiff did not come into Court alleging loss. He merely alleged that so much betel-leaves had been booked by the railway and that the full amount had not been delivered. There is a long series of cases commencing with Ghelabhai Punsi v. E.I. Ry. Co, AIR 1921 Bom 443 and including several cases of this Court, e.g. E.I. Railway Co. v. Kishan Lal Tirkha Mal AIR. 1924 All 7 and E.I. Railway Co. v. Gopi Krishna Kashi Prasad AIR 1924 All 8 as well as E.I. Railway Co. v. Jagpat Singh AIR 1924 All 725 which lay down that where a plaintiff does not come into Court on the ground of loss, destruction or deterioration, the Railway Company must prove that the goods have been lost or destroyed, or have deteriorated before they can claim the protection of the risk note. I may add that the judgment complained of was delivered on 9th April and that this revision was not filed until 5th November. The delay of nearly seven months in filing the application would in itself have been a sufficient ground for declining to accept it.
2. For the reasons already given I dismiss the application with costs.