Skip to content


Sir William Dring, Kt., Agent, East India Ry. Co. Vs. Shiv Prosad Bhakat and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in18Ind.Cas.216
AppellantSir William Dring, Kt., Agent, East India Ry. Co.
RespondentShiv Prosad Bhakat and ors.
Cases Referred and Mulji Dhanji Seit v. The Southern Mahratha Railway Company
Excerpt:
railways act (ix of 1890), section 72, clause (2)(b) - risk note form b--short delivery of goods--liability of railway company--contract in risk not--not contrary to public policy. - .....the defendant company's railway upon the special terms as to rates and liability contained in the risk note, form b. the risk note was duly signed by or on behalf of the plaintiffs, and it is conceded that it is in the form sanctioned by the governor-general in council as required by section 72(2)(b) of the railways act, 1890. on arrival at their destination, it was found that some of the tins had been cut open and there was a shortage in their contents. for compensation for these shortages, the three suits were brought, and the small cause court has granted the plaintiffs decrees holding that the defendant company are liable in spite of the special contract made between the parties.2. in this view, he is clearly in error, and the question is so amply covered by authority that it is.....
Judgment:

1. These are three Rules issued at the instance of the East India Railway Company, defendants in three Small Cause Court suits, calling on the plaintiffs to show cause why the decrees passed in their favour should not be set aside and the suits dismissed. The facts are as follows. The plaintiffs despatched consignments, each of several tins of ghee, for carriage by the defendant Company's railway upon the special terms as to rates and liability contained in the risk note, Form B. The risk note was duly signed by or on behalf of the plaintiffs, and it is conceded that it is in the form sanctioned by the Governor-General in Council as required by Section 72(2)(b) of the Railways Act, 1890. On arrival at their destination, it was found that some of the tins had been cut open and there was a shortage in their contents. For compensation for these shortages, the three suits were brought, and the Small Cause Court has granted the plaintiffs decrees holding that the defendant Company are liable in spite of the special contract made between the parties.

2. In this view, he is clearly in error, and the question is so amply covered by authority that it is unnecessary for us to discuss it at any length. It was suggested by the learned Pleader that the contract embodied in the risk note was contrary to public policy. This question has also been considered in more than one case and decided in favour of the Railway Company. It may be pointed out that the risk note in its present form is not so wide as it previously was. There is now an exception with regard to loss of a whole consignment or one or more complete packages out of a consignment. That, however, does not affect the present case where all the packages arrived but in some cases with a deficiency in their contents. We need only refer to the cases of Moheswar Das v. Carter 10 C. 210; 12 C.L.R. 122; East India Railway Company v. Bunyad Ali 18 A. 42; A.W.N. (1895) 150; Toonya Ram v. East India Railway Company 30 C. 257; 7 C.W.N. 370; Tippana v. Southern Maratha Railway Company 17 B. 417 and Mulji Dhanji Seit v. The Southern Mahratha Railway Company 14 M.J. 396.

3. The Rules must be made absolute, the decrees set aside, and the suits dismissed with costs. The defendant Company must have their costs of these Rules. Hearing fee in each case one gold mohur.


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