Skip to content


Budhu Nath Poddar and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1892)ILR19Cal538
AppellantBudhu Nath Poddar and ors.
RespondentThe Secretary of State for India in Council
Cases ReferredThe Great Northern Railway Co. v. Behrens
Excerpt:
indian railway act (iv of 1879), section 11 - railway company, liability of--carriage of gold and silver, etc.--insurance, increased charge for. - .....demand for any increased payment for insurance. that seems to me to be within the authority of the case of the great northern railway co. v. behrens 7 h. & n. 950. the head note of that case is.' 'where a carrier receives goods of the description mentioned in the 11 geo. iv & 1 wm, iv, c. 68; and the person delivering the same has declared their value and nature, he is not bound to tender, but the carrier must demand the increased charge mentioned in the notice affixed in his office, warehouse or receiving house, whether the goods are there delivered, ox to a servant sent to fetch them; and if no such demand is made the carrier is liable for the loss of or injury to the goods, although the increased charge has not been paid.' the words of the english act and the words in this act are.....
Judgment:

W. Comer Petheram, C.J.

1. This was an action brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant as the owner of a Railway for the loss of a box of coins delivered to them to be carried, and accepted by them for that purpose. The defence is that the defendant is protected from liability by reason of Section 11 of the Railway Act (IV of 1879), but the fact is that at the time of the delivery of the box to the Railway people they were informed of what the nature of the contents was, and with that information they made no demand for any increased payment for insurance. That seems to me to be within the authority of the case of The Great Northern Railway Co. v. Behrens 7 H. & N. 950. The head note of that case is.' 'Where a carrier receives goods of the description mentioned in the 11 Geo. IV & 1 Wm, IV, c. 68; and the person delivering the same has declared their value and nature, he is not bound to tender, but the carrier must demand the increased charge mentioned in the notice affixed in his office, warehouse or receiving house, whether the goods are there delivered, ox to a servant sent to fetch them; and if no such demand is made the carrier is liable for the loss of or injury to the goods, although the increased charge has not been paid.' The words of the English Act and the words in this Act are practically the same so far as this matter is concerned, and we think that the reasoning of that case applies to these cases in this country as well as in England, and that this appeal must be dismissed with costs.


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