1. This is an application in revision by a defendant in a Small Cause Court suit. The suit was brought by Ahmad Mahmud Khan against the B. B. and C. I. Railway but owing to the change in the status of the Railway the defendant-appellant has become the Governor General in Council and the B. B. and C. I. Railway Administration through its General Manager at Bombay. The plaintiff sent some goods under two railway receipts. As regards one of the railway receipts there is no suit. The other railway receipt bore the number 36081. It refers to two boxes haberdashery and one box writing slates. The boxes declared to contain haberdashery were opened and they contained, as the plaintiff himself admits, six tins of Ovaltine, 20 tins of Antiflamin and six bottles of hair oil. This hair oil has been called one packet of perfumery by the assistant goods clerk produced by the defendant. Even if it was hair oil and not concentrated scent, it would come within the term 'perfumery'. Ovaltine would, I presume, be food, and the twenty tins of Antiflamin were considered by the learned Judge to be medicine and I agree with this description. It is the Indian equivalent of Antiphlogis-tine. The company considering that there was a false declaration levied additional charges and the plaintiff brought a suit for the refund. Rule 79 states that when a consignment consists of two or more packages severally containing goods, each package should be charged as a separate consignment with a separate minimum charge unless the total weight of the consignment would be less. The rule also says that a package containing two or more classes of goods is charged on the whole weight at the rate for the highest class of goods which the package contains subject to one minimum only. The only exclusion from this is that a small amount of advertising matter is disregarded. Rule 21 says that if it is found that goods have been improperly described and that a lower rate than that correctly applicable has been thereby obtained, charges at double the highest rate in force, that is to say, the 9th class will be levied and the rule further says that if a materially false account with respect to the description of any goods is given a fine may also be inflicted.
2. The learned Judge held that there was misdescription because Antiflamin and the perfumery was not haberdashery but under the Railway Rules paid a higher rate than haberdashery. He, however, applied the enhanced rate to the weight of the Antiflamin and the perfumery only. He apparently considered the tins of Antiflamin to be one package and perfumery to be one package but Rule 79, as I have shown above, uses the word 'package' as the receptacle which contains goods, that is to say a packing case, a bale, a trunk, a sack, a suit-case or anything of the sort. In this case, therefore, in the consignment of the railway receipt No. 36081 there were three packages. As to one package of writing slates no extra charge has been made and the plaintiff refers to the two boxes as a consignment and this has been accepted by the Railway. These articles were contained in the two boxes and these two boxes forming one consignment should have been declared as containing articles freight on which was chargeable at a higher rate than on haberdashery. As this was not done, the 9th or the highest rate applies to this consignment, that is to say, to the weight of the two boxes and not to the weight of the misdescribed articles or goods. The learned Civil Judge has misunderstood Rule 21 read with Rule 79. He should have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. I, therefore, set aside the decision of the Court below and dismiss the plaintiff's claim with costs throughout.