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

Messrs Lakshmi Bangle Stores instituted a suit for damages against the Eastern Railway and the South-Eastern Railway though Union of India. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal a Division Bench of the High Court set aside the findings of the trial court on merits but dismissed the appeal on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. This appeal via special leave petition is against the judgment of the HighWe may state the necessary facts. The appellant booked a rail wagon for consignment of bangles from Ferozabad to Srikakulam on June 3, 1964. He declared the value of the consigned goods as Rs. 25, 000. The wagon loaded with the glass bangles met with an accident at Ganguti Railway Station on June 22, 1964 and was damaged. Thereafter, the bangle cases were transferred to another wagon by the railway authorities. The consignment reached Srikakulam on July 25, 1964 and an open assessment delivery of the goods was made to the appellant on September 4, 1964. The appellant found that more than half of the bangles were damaged. According to the appellant the actual value of the bangles was Rs. 56, 837.04 and the value of the undamaged stock delivered back to him was Rs. 27, 752.87. The appellant thus claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 32, 869.87. The respondents contested the claim of the appellant. It was pleaded that the appellant having declared the value of the entire consignment as Rs. 25, 000 he could not claim damages by enhancing the value to Rs. 56, 837.04. It was also stated that in view of the provisions of Section 77-B of the Indian Railways Act the appellant was not entitled to the damages. It was further pleaded that the suit having been filed beyond the period of 3 years from the date of accident, when loss to the property occurred, the same was barred by limitation under Article 10 of the LimitationThe trial court in its judgment dated February 7, 1970 came to the followingThe accident which occurred on June 20, 1964 was due to the negligence and carelessness of the railway servants and was notThe damaged bangles were delivered to the appellant-plaintiff on September 4, 1964, when the extent of loss to the goods, was known. Counting the period of limitation from September 4, 1964, the suit was withinSection 77-B of the Indian Railways Act was not attracted to the facts of theThe appellant-plaintiff having declared the value of the goods at Rs. 25, 000 he was estopped from contending that the said value was more than thatIn view of the above findings, the appellant having received back from the railway undamaged goods of the value of Rs. 27, 754.87, which value was more than the declared value, his suit was dismissed by the trialThe High Court approved the findings of the trial court to the effect that the accident was due to the negligence of the railway servants and that Section 77-B of the Indian Railways Act was applicable. The High Court, however, reversed the findings of the trial court on the point of limitation and also on valuation. The High Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to claim the value of the consigned goods as Rs. 56, 837.04 and the declaration regarding value at the time of booking the consignment was of on consequence. The High Court finally dismissed the appeal on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation

Court's reasoning:
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