Skip to content


East Indian Railway Company Vs. Firm Gopi Krishna-kashi Prasad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1924All8; 77Ind.Cas.1046
AppellantEast Indian Railway Company
RespondentFirm Gopi Krishna-kashi Prasad
Cases ReferredEast Indian Railway Company v. Firm Kishin Lal Tirkhamal
Excerpt:
railway company - unreasonable delay--damage to goods ndependent of loss or deterioration--risk-note b, whether affords protection. - .....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 ghazipore on the east indian railway to manbhum, on 26th 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 25th 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 dispatched protected the railway company from.....
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 Ghazipore on the East Indian Railway to Manbhum, on 26th 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 25th 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 dispatched 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 in Ram Kishun Ram v. North Western Railway 77 Ind. Cas. 1020 : 20 A.L.J. 973 : (1923) A.I.R.(A) 122, and Secretary of State v. Firm Jiwan and Abdullah 71 Ind. Cas. 609 : 21 A.L.J. 220 : 45 A. 380 : (1923) A.I.R.(A) 426, are distinguishable. The case is somewhat similar to East Indian Railway Company v. Firm Kishin Lal Tirkhamal 73 Ind. Cas. 986 : 21 A.L.J. 438 : 9 O. & A.L.R.(A) 531 : 45 A. 530 : (1924) A.I.R.(A) 7, recently decided by me. On tie 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 revision but was not argued and I cannot, therefore, take notice of it.


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