Skip to content


The Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway Vs. Gulabbhai Bhagwandas - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in92Ind.Cas.532
AppellantThe Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway
RespondentGulabbhai Bhagwandas
Cases ReferredChunni Lal v. Nizam
Excerpt:
carriage, of goods - railway company--freight charged at maund-rates, whether can be subsequently calculated at wagon-rates. - .....rs. 211. at destination the railway', claimed an additional sum of rs. 219 on the ground that the goods occupied a full eight-wheeled wagon. the judge of the small cause court has decided that this overcharge was not justified as the railway company were not entitled to alter the basis of calculation at maund-rates on which the rail receipt was granted to a calculation at wagon-rates or vice, versa. this view is supported by the full bench decision in chunni lal v. nizam's guaranteed state railway co. 29 a. 228 : 2 m.l.t. 42 :: a.w.n. (1907) 21 : 4 a.l.j. 80. the learned pleader for the applicant states that there is a mistake in the judgment in saying that the charge has been made at wagon-rates, but i find that the passage in the judgment is reproduced verbatim from the statement made.....
Judgment:

Daniels, J.

1. This is a revision against a decree of the Small Cause Court. The goods were consigned at maund-rates. The freight charged in the Kail way receipt was Rs. 211. At destination the Railway', claimed an additional sum of Rs. 219 on the ground that the goods occupied a full eight-wheeled wagon. The Judge of the Small Cause Court has decided that this overcharge was not justified as the Railway Company were not entitled to alter the basis of calculation at maund-rates on which the Rail receipt was granted to a calculation at wagon-rates or vice, versa. This view is supported by the Full Bench decision in Chunni Lal v. Nizam's Guaranteed State Railway Co. 29 A. 228 : 2 M.L.T. 42 :: A.W.N. (1907) 21 : 4 A.L.J. 80. The learned Pleader for the applicant states that there is a mistake in the judgment in saying that the charge has been made at wagon-rates, but I find that the passage in the judgment is reproduced verbatim from the statement made by the defendant's Vakil in the Court below. Even if the applicant's case Is correct and the Railway are charging on a conventional amount of maunds320 because the goods occupied a complete wagon, this does not appear to me to make any difference in principle. The view taken by the Court below was, in my opinion, correct, and I dismiss this revision with costs..


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