Skip to content


East Indian Railway Vs. Firm Baldeo Gutain - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in92Ind.Cas.1007
AppellantEast Indian Railway
RespondentFirm Baldeo Gutain
Cases ReferredFakir Chand v. Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company
Excerpt:
contract act (ix of 1872), section 281 - railway receipt granted in name of agent--loss of goods--owner of goods, whether can sue--carriage of goods--railway company--risk note--sealing wagon with paper--loss of goods in transit--wilful negligence. - .....on the part of the railway. the grounds taken in revision are two:(1) that the plaintiff-firm was not entitled to sue because the railway receipt was granted in the name of its agents.(2) that the court below was wrong in holding that sealing a wagon with paper only constitutes wilful negligence.2. on the first point even if the name of the principal was not disclosed he is entitled under section 231 of the contract act to sue on the contract. i know of no authority for the proposition that where a railway receipt is granted in the name of a servant or agent the real owner of the goods cannot claim for their value if lost. on the second point the judgment of the court below is supported by the ruling in firm balram dass-fakir chand v. great indian peninsula railway company :.....
Judgment:

Daniels, J.

1. This is a revision application against a Small Cause Court decree awarding compensation for two bags of sugar forming two complete packages out of a larger consignment which were lost in transit. The lower Court has held that there was wilful negligence on the part of the Railway. The grounds taken in revision are two:

(1) That the plaintiff-firm was not entitled to sue because the Railway receipt was granted in the name of its agents.

(2) That the Court below was wrong in holding that sealing a wagon with paper only constitutes wilful negligence.

2. On the first point even if the name of the principal was not disclosed he is entitled under Section 231 of the Contract Act to sue on the contract. I know of no authority for the proposition that where a Railway receipt is granted in the name of a servant or agent the real owner of the goods cannot claim for their value if lost. On the second point the judgment of the Court below is supported by the ruling in Firm Balram Dass-Fakir Chand v. Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company : AIR1925All562 which I am unable to distinguish from the facts of the present case. The revision accordingly fails and I dismiss it with costs.


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