Case: Chhangamal Harpaldas &amp; Another Vs. Dominion of India &amp; Another

consignee alone could sue for loss caused by non-delivery of goods after the goods had been delivered to the railway company for consignment. After referring to that judgment, the learned Judge observed that"When goods are delivered to a Railway Company for transmission to a buyer, the property in the goods passes to the buyer and any loss that is occasioned thereafter is the loss to the buyer and no loss to the seller, and that the seller having suffered no loss, is not entitled to claim any damages from the Railway Company. That, however, is not a decision in support of the proposition that a bare consignee under a railway receipt may sue the railway administration for loss of the goods.15. In AIR 1924 Mad 517(K) the head-note is :"Consignee alone can sue for loss caused by the non-delivery of the goods after the goods have been delivered to railway company for consignment."In that case, the consignors filed a suit for damages for loss of a consignment. On evidence it was found that in consigning the goods the plaintiffs had acted merely as agents of another person and had in consequence of non-delivery of the goods to the consignee not suffered any loss. On those facts it was held that the consignors were not entitled to maintain the action. The observation that a consignee alone can file a suit was plainly unnecessary for the decision of that case.16. In Shamji Bhanji and Co. v. North Western Rly. Co., 48 Bom LR 698 : (AIR 1947 Bom 169) (L), it was held by Mr. Justice Bhagwati that the plaintiffs, who were consignors and who ultimately became endorsees of the railway receipt, could file a suit for loss of the goods. It was observed in that case that the endorsements made on the railway receipt by the plaintiffs had not the effect of passing the property and that in any event the reendorsement made by the endorsee in favour of the plaintiffs invested them with the right to receive the goods represented by the railway receipt from the railway company, and that as the contract of carriage had been entered into by the plaintiffs with the railway company the plaintiffs were the only persons entitled to maintain the suit against the railway company for compensation for loss of the goods. The case does not lay down that the consignee can file a suit for compensation for loss, and the principle of the case is plainly inconsistent with the dictum in the case in AIR 1924 Mad 517 (K).17. In Erachshaw Desabhai v. Dominion of India, (S) AIR 1955 Madh B 70 (M), it was observed that a consignee of goods has sufficient interest in the goods to entitle him to sue for compensation for loss arising out of misconduct of the railway administration, and in support of that observation, Jalan and Sons, Ltd. v. Governor-General in Council, AIR 1949 EP 190 (N), was cited. But it is evident from Jalan and Sons case (N) that the plaintiffs were held entitled to sue as endorsees of the railway receipt, and not as consignees. Again in Erachshaws case (M) the plaintiffs were held on facts to be owners of the goods and entitled to sue.18. It is admitted that the railway receipts were never sent to the plaintiffs by the consignors and the plaintiffs were merely commission agents of Peer Mahomed and Sons. Suganmal Harpaldas, who is a partner of the plaintiffs firm, admitted in his evidence that he had not suffered any loss and that he was entitled merely to his commission in the sale proceeds. He also admitted in his evidence that the railway receipt was never sent to him. Evidently the plaintiffs were not even in possession of the railway receipt and could not be deemed to have become owners of the goods by negotiation of the railway receipt. They had otherwise no interest in the goods as owners and they were not parties to the contract with the railway administration.19. Mr. Kotwal submitted that when a railway receipt is issued by the railway administration on consignment of goods there is a tripartite contract between the consignor, the consignee and the railway administration and that the breach of contract by the railway administration or misconduct of the employees of the railway confers a cause of action upon the consignee. In our view, this contention cannot be accepted. The contract incorporated in the railway receipt results from acceptance of the Forwarding Note the consignor to the railway administration and which is expressly in the form of a request by it is on acceptance of the Forwarding Note that the railway receipt is issued. It is true that the consignor may direct the railway administration to deliver the goods covered by the railway receipt to the consignee, but the consignee does not thereby become a party to the contract. Unless he is the owner of the goods covered by the railway receipt, the consignee is an agent of the consignor for receiving the goods; and an agent of the consignor cannot sue the railway administration for loss of the goods.20. It is well-settled that normally a person who is not a party to a contract is not entitled to maintain an action for breach of that contract. That rule, it is true, is subject to certain well-recognised exceptions, e.g., a person who is not a party to a contract can sue on it if he is claiming through a party to the contract or if he is in the position of a cestui que trust or a trust or of a principal suing through an agent, or if he claims under a family settlement (See National Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Popatlal Mulji, 38 Bom LR 610 : (AIR 1936 Bom 344) (O)).In this case, the plaintiffs do not fall within any of the excepted classes. Not being parties to the contract and not being owners of the goods covered by the railway receipt,

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

Explanation:
0[ds]In our view, that contention must be accepted. The Forwarding Notes expressly requested the Station Master at Kajgaon to despatch the goods by passenger train and in pursuance of these Forwarding Notes the Parcel Way Bills were made out. Even it was the case of the railway administration, as is evident from the letters Exhibits 141, 143 and 111, that the consignments of plantains had been sent by passenger train, it is undisputed that from Kajgaon to Itarsi the consignments had not been sent by passenger train but they were sent by parcel trains. 39 Dn. from Victoria Terminus, to which the wagons were attached, is only a parcel train. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the view of the learned trial Judge that there was no breach of contract committed by the railway administration in sending the wagons from Kajgaon to Itarsi by a parcel train.It is admitted that the railway receipts were never sent to the plaintiffs by the consignors and the plaintiffs were merely commission agents of Peer Mahomed and Sons. Suganmal Harpaldas, who is a partner of the plaintiffs firm, admitted in his evidence that he had not suffered any loss and that he was entitled merely to his commission in the sale proceeds. He also admitted in his evidence that the railway receipt was never sent to him. Evidently the plaintiffs were not even in possession of the railway receipt and could not be deemed to have become owners of the goods by negotiation of the railway receipt. They had otherwise no interest in the goods as owners and they were not parties to the contract with the railwayour view, this contention cannot be accepted. The contract incorporated in the railway receipt results from acceptance of the Forwarding Note the consignor to the railway administration and which is expressly in the form of a request by it is on acceptance of the Forwarding Note that the railway receipt is issued. It is true that the consignor may direct the railway administration to deliver the goods covered by the railway receipt to the consignee, but the consignee does not thereby become a party to the contract. Unless he is the owner of the goods covered by the railway receipt, the consignee is an agent of the consignor for receiving the goods; and an agent of the consignor cannot sue the railway administration for loss of the goods.20. It isthat normally a person who is not a party to a contract is not entitled to maintain an action for breach of that contract. That rule, it is true, is subject to certainexceptions, e.g., a person who is not a party to a contract can sue on it if he is claiming through a party to the contract or if he is in the position of a cestui que trust or a trust or of a principal suing through an agent, or if he claims under a family settlement (See National Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Popatlal Mulji, 38 Bom LR 610 : (AIR 1936 Bom 344) (O)).In this case, the plaintiffs do not fall within any of the excepted classes. Not being parties to the contract and not being owners of the goods covered by the railway receipt, in our judgment, the plaintiffs had no right to maintain an action for compensation for loss of the goods.