Skip to content


Gopi Krishna and Kashi Prasad Vs. East India Railway Company - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1923)ILR45All534
AppellantGopi Krishna and Kashi Prasad
RespondentEast India Railway Company
Excerpt:
railway company - goods consigned under risk-note in form b--suit for damages on account of unreasonable delay in delivery--company not protected from liability. - .....of the small. cause court and raises a question of the liability of the railway company under risk-note b. the goods in question were consigned from tarighat near ghazipur on the east indian railway to manbhum, on the 26th of january, 1922. the goods were not lost nor were they destroyed, but the railway company took five months to convey them and they did not reach their destination until the 25th of june, 1922. the delay was unquestionably unreasonable. the trial court finds that owing to this delay damage was suffered by the plaintiff quite independently of any deterioration of the goods. the ghee was in fact sent with a view to a marriage which had already taken place before the consignment was received. the risk-note b under which the goods were despatched protected the railway.....
Judgment:

Daniels, J.

1. This is a revision directed against an order of the Small. Cause Court and raises a question of the liability of the railway company under risk-note B. The goods in question were consigned from Tarighat near Ghazipur on the East Indian Railway to Manbhum, on the 26th of January, 1922. The goods were not lost nor were they destroyed, but the railway company took five months to convey them and they did not reach their destination until the 25th of June, 1922. The delay was unquestionably unreasonable. The trial court finds that owing to this delay damage was suffered by the plaintiff quite independently of any deterioration of the goods. The ghee was in fact sent with a view to a marriage which had already taken place before the consignment was received. The risk-note B under which the goods were despatched protected the railway company from any claim for damages due to the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods or for damage to the consignment except in certain specified cases. On the finding of fact of the court below the cause of action in this case was not due to any of the special events against which the railway is protected by the risk-note. It was, therefore, outside the protection afforded by the note and the cases of Ram Kishun Ram v. North-Western Railway (1920) 20 A.L.J. 973 and Secretary of State v. Jiwan (1923) I.L.R. 45 All. 380 are distinguishable. The case is somewhat similar to Civil Revision 23 of 1923 recently decided by me Vide Supra p. 530. On the finding of fact of the court below the revision cannot succeed, and I accordingly dismiss it with costs.

2. A ground that the damages were wrongly assessed was taken in the grounds of revisions but was not argued, and I cannot, therefore, take notice of it.


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