Case: Lakshmi Bangle Stores Vs. Union of India &amp; Others

be on the railway administration who want to non-suit the plaintiff on the ground of limitation to establish that the loss or injury occurred more than one year before the institution of the suit." * 8. No evidence whatsoever was produced by the respondent railway administration to show that the damage to the goods occurred more than 3 years before the suit was instituted. There is on finding in this respect by any of the court below. The High Court decided the issue against the appellant in the following words: "In the present case, the plaintiff deposed that after taking open delivery he made enquiries and came to known that the damage was due to the collision and to the transhipment. Knowing when the collision and transhipment had taken place the plaintiff was himself to blame if he did not file the suit within the prescribed period of limitation." * "In the case before us, the very case of the plaintiff was that the goods were damaged on the date of collision and the date of transhipment. The railway administration was thus relieved of the burden of establishing when the damage was caused. The suit was filed beyond the period prescribed by Article 10 of the Limitation Act read with Section 15 of the Limitation Act." * 9. We do not agree with the High Court. The date of accident was mentioned in the plaint to narrate a fact. It was also averred that the plaintiff came to know about the damage on September 4, 1964 when he received open delivery of the goods. The knowledge of the accident may have given rise to an assumption that the goods were damaged in the accident but the burden of proving that the damage occurred 3 years beyond the date of suit has to be discharged by the railway. There is no material on the record to show that the respondents have done so. The High Court was not justified in relieving the railway administration of its burden. We, therefore, set aside the findings of the High Court on this issue. 10. Since we have decided the limitation issue against the railways it has become necessary to deal with the argument of Mr. R.B. Datar, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondents, on the other issue. He has contended that the High Court wrongly set aside the finding of the trial court on the issue of valuation of the goods. According to him, the appellant cannot be permitted to go back from the valuation of the goods which he declared at the time of booking the consignment. The appellant having declared the value of the consigned goods to be Rs. 25, 000, he cannot now claim Rs. 56, 837.04 for the same.11. The question for our consideration is whether the railway administration is liable to pay the appellant compensation in excess of the valuation which was declared by him at the time of booking the goods, though he was under no legal obligation to make such a declaration. 12. Mr. Datar seeks support from Chunilal v. Governor General in Council 1949 AIR(Mad) 754 : 1949 (1) MLJ 538 ). Mack, J. who delivered the judgment observed as under : (AIR p. 755, para 3) "An interesting point for determination is whether if plaintiff, though under no legal obligation to value the contents of the box, does so of his own accord, the railway company is legally liable to pay him compensation in excess of his own valuation.... I am of the opinion that where a consignor takes it upon himself specifically to value a box and its contents consigned by rail, it is not open to him to claim from the railway company anything in excess of that valuation and to contend that the box contained more valuable things, an averment, which the railway company may have great difficult in refuting." * 13. Chunilal case 1949 AIR(Mad) 754 : 1949 (1) MLJ 538 ) was notice by the High Court but the High Court disagreed with the view taken by Mack, J. in the following words: "The learned Judge did not state the principal on which he was basing his conclusion. If it was his view that the consignor was estopped from claiming more than the value mentioned in the declaration we do not see how there can be any estoppel unless the railway administration had done something in furtherance of the representation contained in the declaration. The learned Judge referred to the difficulty of the railway administration in refuting a claim about the actual value of the goods. That is only a matter of evidence and proof and we would think that the consignor would be under a greater difficulty in proving that the actual value of the goods was higher than that which he himself had voluntarily declared. We, therefore, hold that the valuation mentioned in the forwarding note does not bind the plaintiff." * 14. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the point in issue. We are of the view that the appellant should not be permitted to change the value of the consigned goods at his convenience and to his advantage. The bill produced by the appellant before the trial court to substantiate the value of the goods must be in existence at the time of booking the consignment. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why he declared Rs. 25, 000 as the value of the goods at the time of booking against his claim of Rs. 56, 837.04 at the trial. We see no equity in the stand of the appellant. The rule of fair play in action demands that the appellant be pinned down to the valuation of the consigned goods declared by him voluntarily. We approve the view expressed by Mack, J. in Chunilal case 1949 AIR(Mad) 754 : 1949 (1) MLJ 538 ). We set aside the findings of the High Court in this respect and restore that of the trial court.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]9. We do not agree with the High Court. The date of accident was mentioned in the plaint to narrate a fact. It was also averred that the plaintiff came to know about the damage on September 4, 1964 when he received open delivery of the goods. The knowledge of the accident may have given rise to an assumption that the goods were damaged in the accident but the burden of proving that the damage occurred 3 years beyond the date of suit has to be discharged by the railway. There is no material on the record to show that the respondents have done so. The High Court was not justified in relieving the railway administration of its burden. We, therefore, set aside the findings of the High Court on thisSince we have decided the limitation issue against the railways it has become necessary to deal with the argument of Mr. R.B. Datar, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondents, on the other issue. He has contended that the High Court wrongly set aside the finding of the trial court on the issue of valuation of the goods. According to him, the appellant cannot be permitted to go back from the valuation of the goods which he declared at the time of booking the consignment. The appellant having declared the value of the consigned goods to be Rs. 25, 000, he cannot now claim Rs. 56, 837.04 for theWe have given our thoughtful consideration to the point in issue. We are of the view that the appellant should not be permitted to change the value of the consigned goods at his convenience and to his advantage. The bill produced by the appellant before the trial court to substantiate the value of the goods must be in existence at the time of booking the consignment. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why he declared Rs. 25, 000 as the value of the goods at the time of booking against his claim of Rs. 56, 837.04 at the trial. We see no equity in the stand of the appellant. The rule of fair play in action demands that the appellant be pinned down to the valuation of the consigned goods declared by him voluntarily. We approve the view expressed by Mack, J. in Chunilal case 1949 AIR(Mad) 754 : 1949 (1) MLJ 538 ). We set aside the findings of the High Court in this respect and restore that of the trial court