Skip to content


Hari Sankar Raj Chandra Dalal Vs. the E.i. Ry. Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Cal308
AppellantHari Sankar Raj Chandra Dalal
RespondentThe E.i. Ry. Co.
Excerpt:
- .....the documents in this case that the consignor was one sital hari srimani. this appears from the goods consignment notes which are exhibited in the case. the risk notes are signed by jugal hari srimani, who purports to sign the risk note as the sender of the goods; and what is suggested on behalf of the appellant is that jugal was not the agent of the consignor; and that this not being established in the case the railway company are not protected by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 72. the goods consignment notes are before us; and certainly in two of them exhibits (e) and (d) jugal hari srimani who appears to have despatched the goods, signed for sital hari srimani. it seems to us that the matter is really concluded by an examination of the documents themselves. section.....
Judgment:

Greaves, J.

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Asansole confirming a decision of the Munsiff of Asansole. The suit was brought by the plaintiff as the consignor of certain consignments of sugar to recover a sum of Rupees six hundred and twenty-nine and annas ten, damages for loss of part of the goods. The sugar was consigned to the defendant-Company for carriage to the plaintiff at Ranigunj. There were four consignments of sugar. The first was made on the 28th November, 1919 of some 344 maunds and the loss claimed in respect of this consignment is in respect of deficiency of 3 maunds 18 seers of sugar. The second consignment was consigned on the 30th January, 1920. The amount of the consignment was the same as that in the first consignment and the sugar lost in course of transit was 4 maunds and 30 seers. The third consignment was on the 26th March, 1920 and the loss in respect of that consignment was 1 maund and 28 seers. The fourth consignment was made on the 16th April, 1920; the loss in respect of that consignment was 11 maunds and 28 seers; and the sum claimed in the suit represents the value of the deficiencies of sugar in respect of these four consignments. The only question that really arises in this suit is whether the Railway Company are protected by the provisions of Section 72, Sub-section (2) of the Railway Act (Act IX of 1890). Section 72, Sub-section (2) provides that an agreement purporting to limit the responsibility of the Railway for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of goods delivered to it to be carried by Railway shall in so far as it purports to effect such a limitation be void unless it (a) is in writing signed by or on behalf of the person sending or delivering to the Railway Administration the goods. Nothing turns on the clause (6) of Subsection (2) of Section 72.

2. Now, it appears from the documents in this case that the consignor was one Sital Hari Srimani. This appears from the goods consignment notes which are exhibited in the case. The risk notes are signed by Jugal Hari Srimani, who purports to sign the risk note as the sender of the goods; and what is suggested on behalf of the appellant is that Jugal was not the agent of the consignor; and that this not being established in the case the Railway Company are not protected by the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 72. The goods consignment notes are before us; and certainly in two of them Exhibits (e) and (d) Jugal Hari Srimani who appears to have despatched the goods, signed for Sital Hari Srimani. It seems to us that the matter is really concluded by an examination of the documents themselves. Section 72, Subsection (2) provides that the Railway Company are protected by an agreement signed either by the person sending goods or by the person delivering goods to the Railway Company. This is my reading of clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 72.

3. From what 1 have stated it appears clear that the person who delivered the goods to the Railway was Jugal Hari Srimani. Consequently, it seems to us that as the risk notes were signed by the person who delivered the goods to the Railway the Railway are protected by the provisions of Section 72, Sub-section (2), clause (a) and I think this really disposes of the appeal.

4. In the result, therefore, the appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.

Chakravarti, J.

5. I agree.


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