Skip to content


The M. and S.M. Ry. Co. Ltd. Vs. K. Rangaswamy Chetty and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in73Ind.Cas.537
AppellantThe M. and S.M. Ry. Co. Ltd.
RespondentK. Rangaswamy Chetty and anr.
Cases ReferredDawes v. Peck
Excerpt:
contract act (ix of 1872), section 91 - railways act (ix of 1890), section 72(3)--delivery of goods by seller to railway for consignment to buyer--property in goods--seller's right to sue for damages. - .....so far as the goods bought from kaveri chetty are concerned, it is obvious that plaintiffs can claim no damages and this is practically conceded in argument. under section 91 of the indian contract act the other goods had been delivered to munisami chetty and properties in them had passed to him. plaintiffs in consigning the goods, some of which had never been their property, only acted as munisami's agents. if the property had passed from plaintiffs they have sustained no loss by the non-delivery of the goods and consequently no damages. dawes v. peck (1799) 8 t.r. 330 : 3 esp. 121 : 101 e.r. 1417 is authority for hoding that consignee alone can sue in such a case and it does not seem |o me that section 72(3) of the indian railways act has any application here for the responsibility of.....
Judgment:

Phillips, J.

1. So far as the goods bought from Kaveri Chetty are concerned, it is obvious that plaintiffs can claim no damages and this is practically conceded in argument. Under Section 91 of the Indian Contract Act the other goods had been delivered to Munisami Chetty and properties in them had passed to him. Plaintiffs in consigning the goods, some of which had never been their property, only acted as Munisami's agents. If the property had passed from plaintiffs they have sustained no loss by the non-delivery of the goods and consequently no damages. Dawes v. Peck (1799) 8 T.R. 330 : 3 Esp. 121 : 101 E.R. 1417 is authority for hoding that consignee alone can sue in such a case and it does not seem |o me that Section 72(3) of the Indian Railways Act has any application here for the responsibility of the Railway Company is not affected, but that responsibility is to the consignee and not to his agent, the consignor.

2. The petition is allowed and plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs throughout.


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