Skip to content


JaIn Glass Works Vs. Secy. of State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1933All854
AppellantJaIn Glass Works
RespondentSecy. of State
Excerpt:
- .....a suit for damages against a railway company.2. three consignments of grass were sent under risk note, form b. the rate for carrying grass at owner's risk is 3 annas, 6 pies per maund with a minimum of 160 maunds, whereas the rate for carrying the same at the company's risk is 3 annas 10 pies with a minimum of 160 maunds. the risk note that was granted to the consignor was on form b as the amount that was charged was rs. 28-12-0 which was less than rs. 35, which would be the rate for carrying the goods at the owner's risk. the clerk in filling up the columns put down the rate of 3 annas, 10 pies per maund but at the same time ignored the minimum quantity of 160 maunds, which was required for that rate. the net result was that he charged less from the consignor.3. the learned.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Sulaiman, C.J.

1. This is an application in revision from a decree of the Court of Small Causes dismissing a suit for damages against a railway company.

2. Three consignments of grass were sent under risk note, form B. The rate for carrying grass at owner's risk is 3 annas, 6 pies per maund with a minimum of 160 maunds, whereas the rate for carrying the same at the company's risk is 3 annas 10 pies with a minimum of 160 maunds. The risk note that was granted to the consignor was on form B as the amount that was charged was Rs. 28-12-0 which was less than Rs. 35, which would be the rate for carrying the goods at the owner's risk. The clerk in filling up the columns put down the rate of 3 annas, 10 pies per maund but at the same time ignored the minimum quantity of 160 maunds, which was required for that rate. The net result was that he charged less from the consignor.

3. The learned advocate for the applicant contends that because the rate mentioned in the column by the clerk was 3 annas 10 pies although the amount actually charged from the consignor was less than what would have been payable if the goods were carried at owner's risk and although risk-note from B, was given never the less the company was liable and the terms of the contract which exempt the company from liability should be ignored.

4. This contention has no force. The word 'rate' mentioned in the risk-note, form B, must necessarily mean the charge per maund for the minimum quantity. The crucial point is that the written contract between the parties was contained in form B, which exempts, the company from all liability from loss or destruction. The amount charged by the company was less than what would have been payable if the goods were taken at owner's risk and was much less than what would have been payable if the goods had been taken at railway risk. The consignor or consignee are therefore bound by the clause exempting the company from all liability.

5. In revision I would not entertain the plea that the risk-note, form B, was not formally proved in the Court below. The application is dismissed with costs.


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