Skip to content


The Secretary of State for India in Council and anr. Vs. Firm Makundi Lal Hoti Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in96Ind.Cas.349
AppellantThe Secretary of State for India in Council and anr.
RespondentFirm Makundi Lal Hoti Lal
Excerpt:
railways act (ix of 1800), section 54 - carriage of goods--freight undercharged by mistake--recovery of deficiency--suit to recover back, difference, maintainability of. - - the case is a perfectly clear one and i am unable to understand how the learned subordinate judge came to the conclusion that the correction of this mistake did not come within the condition. the decrees of the court below are clearly erroneous and i set them aside and dismiss both the plaintiffs' suits with costs in all courts including in this court fees on the higher scale......to howrah. the station master by mistake quoted the lower rate of re. 0-10-6 a maund and the railway receipt was prepared accordingly. on arrival at destination the mistake was discovered and the difference between the amount paid and the correct charge was recovered from the consignors. this was done under a condition in the railway receipt which permits the railway to re-measure, re-weigh or re-classify the goods or re-calculate the rates and other charges at destination. the case is a perfectly clear one and i am unable to understand how the learned subordinate judge came to the conclusion that the correction of this mistake did not come within the condition. the cases which have been referred in which the railway, after a rail-receipt had been granted on the basis of weight,.....
Judgment:

Daniels, J.

1. These are two connected revisions against decrees of a Small Cause Court. The facts are these:The rate in force per maund from Manzurgarhi to Howrah in respect of cereals was Rs. 1-5-0 a maund. From the station of Harduaganj which was farther from Howrah, a lesser rate of Rs. 0-10-6 was in force. This had been brought to the attention of the superior Railway Authorities and from 1st July 1922 the rate from Manzurgarhi was reduced to the rate prevailing from Harduaganj. On 14th May, 1922 the plaintiffs in theso suits consigned goods from Mauzurgarhi to Howrah. The Station Master by mistake quoted the lower rate of Re. 0-10-6 a maund and the Railway receipt was prepared accordingly. On arrival at destination the mistake was discovered and the difference between the amount paid and the correct charge was recovered from the consignors. This was done under a condition in the Railway receipt which permits the Railway to re-measure, re-weigh or re-classify the goods or re-calculate the rates and other charges at destination. The case is a perfectly clear one and I am unable to understand how the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the correction of this mistake did not come within the condition. The cases which have been referred in which the Railway, after a rail-receipt had been granted on the basis of weight, attempted to charge for a complete wagon or wagons stand on an entirely different footing. The decrees of the Court below are clearly erroneous and I set them aside and dismiss both the plaintiffs' suits with costs in all Courts including in this Court fees on the higher scale.


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