Case: Munshi Ram Vs. Union of India

defendants written statement it was stated that the goods had been booked at the owners risk rate and the railway is protected unless gross negligence or misconduct is proved on behalf of the employees of the railway. It was admitted that the goods were slightly damaged, but denied that the potatoes were unfit for human consumption. It was asserted that the plaintiff took all the 180 bags on a gate pass issued by the railway and no bag was left behind. The plaintiff took the goods away without any assessment being made.3. The Trial Court framed a number of issues, but we may only mention the following -(2) What is the extent of damages to the suit consignment ?(3) What is the normal period of transit ?(4) Whether the damage to the suit consignment was due to the negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway administration concerned or their employees ?(5) Whether the plaintiff obtained delivery of only 92 bags under the direction of the Goods Supervisor, New Delhi ?(6) To what amount of damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?4. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff took delivery of whole of the 180 bags and not 92 bags as alleged by the plaintiff and further that although there was some damage to the goods in suit but (sic) it is not certain as to what was the actual damage to the goods. He further held that the extent of the damage could not be ascertained and, therefore, decided Issues Nos. 2 and 5 against the plaintiff.5. On Issue No. 3 he held that the normal period of transit between Delhi and Bombay was eight or nine days.6. On Issue No. 4 he held that the damages to the goods was to a very great extent due to unreasonable delay on the part of the railway and the delay being unreasonable the same is prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the railway.7. On Issue No. 6 he held that the plaintiff is not entitled to any damage whatsoever because the real amount of damages could not be ascertained.8. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge. He dismissed the appeal on the ground that the delay can be due to cause other than negligence or misconduct of the railway administration or the employees, and it cannot be presumed from mere delay in delivery that there was negligence or misconduct, in case the goods are booked at owners risk rate.9. The plaintiff then filed an appeal to the High Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal in limine.10. The plaintiff then filed a Letters Patent Appeal. The High Court, however, took the point that there was no sufficient material on the record to prove that the damage to the goods was caused in the course of the transportation.11. According to the High Court, the plaintiff had failed to establish that the goods were booked and entrusted to the railway administration at Bombay for carriages to New Delhi in a good condition. There is not an iota of evidence on this point.12. The High Court observed :"In this state of affairs, when it is not proved that the deterioration of goods occurred in the course of transit, the very basis of the appellants claim is lacking. In view of this patent lacuna in the appellants evidence we have no hesitation in holding that the learned Single Judge was right in rejecting the appellants appeal in limine."13. The learned for the appellant, Mr. A. V. Rangam, urged that the High Court has decided the appeal on a point which was admitted in the written statement. He pointed out that in para (1) of the plaint it was stated that the potatoes were of "first class quality" and the Union of India in their written statement stated that the contents of para (1) of the plaint are correct. He contended that the words "first class quality" include their state or condition and, therefore, the Union of India had admitted that the goods were of "first class quality" when they were booked. He referred to Ballentines Law Dictionary. The meaning of word "first class" given therein is that "a term often used in describing goods in a contract of sales and implying that they are such as correspond with the best of their kind in general use, not merely with the best of a single manufacturer, unless, indeed, the two superlatives coincide".14. The learned Counsel for the appellant then referred to Section 2(12) of the Sale of Goods Act. 1930, where "quality of goods" is defined as to include their state of condition.15. We are unable to give this interpretation to the pleadings. It seems to us that the plaint referred to the quality of the potatoes and not to their actual condition when they were booked. There are various qualities of potatoes and the consignment of potatoes was described as "first class quality". Further the railway would not know of the quality or the condition of the potatoes when they were booked because they would be in bags, especially, as they were booked at the owners risk rate.16. It seems to us that this appeal can be disposed of on the ground that the extent of damages has not been proved in this case. The plaintiff came with a definite case that he had only taken delivery of 92 bags and left the remaining bags at the railway station. This has been negatived by all the Courts and this finding in binding on us. Naturally after having pleaded that he only took 92 bags, no evidence could be led as to the price, if any which was fetched by the sale of the remaining bags. We have, therefore, no information as to the exact damages.17. We are of the opinion that the Trial Court correctly came to the conclusion that the extent of damages in the present case cannot be ascertained and therefore the plaintiff must fail.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]15. We are unable to give this interpretation to the pleadings. It seems to us that the plaint referred to the quality of the potatoes and not to their actual condition when they were booked. There are various qualities of potatoes and the consignment of potatoes was described as "first class quality". Further the railway would not know of the quality or the condition of the potatoes when they were booked because they would be in bags, especially, as they were booked at the owners risk rate.16. It seems to us that this appeal can be disposed of on the ground that the extent of damages has not been proved in this case. The plaintiff came with a definite case that he had only taken delivery of 92 bags and left the remaining bags at the railway station. This has been negatived by all the Courts and this finding in binding on us. Naturally after having pleaded that he only took 92 bags, no evidence could be led as to the price, if any which was fetched by the sale of the remaining bags. We have, therefore, no information as to the exact damages.17. We are of the opinion that the Trial Court correctly came to the conclusion that the extent of damages in the present case cannot be ascertained and therefore the plaintiff must fail.