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

On 29th September 1948. Peer Mahomed and Sons had signed a Forwarding Note for awagonload of plantains from Kajgaon to Delhi.The Parcel Way Bill was No. 7933/03, dated 29th September 1948. The consignors were Peer Mahomed and Sons and the consignees were the plaintiffs. The wagon was attached to 39 Dn. Parcel Train up to Itarsi and from Itarsi it was attached to a mixed passenger train. In the normal course, the wagon should have reached Delhi on 1st October 1948 if sent by passenger train; but it reached Delhi on 5th October 1948. On arrival at Delhi the contents of the wagon were found to be damaged and the loss was assessed at Rs.By the Forwarding Note in this case also Peer Mahomed and Sons had requested the railway administration to send the consignment by passenger train but it was sent by parcel train from Kajgaon to Itarsi. The goods were booked at reduced rates under a Risk Note.The plaintiffs served notice upon the railway administration and the Dominion of India claiming Rs. 10,061/12/as compensation for damage to the three consignments. In reply to the claim made by the plaintiffs it was asserted by the Superintendent of Claims by letters exhibits 141, 143 and 111 that the consignments were carried throughout by passenger train as per contract without any avoidable delay and that there was no misconduct on the part of the railway administration. The railway administration having rejected the claim, the plaintiffs filed Special Regular Suit No. 12 of 1950 in the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Jalgaon against the Dominion of India as representing the Central Railway, for a decree for Rs. 10,061/12/being the amount of compensation for loss suffered by the plaintiffs, and interest thereon. The plaintiffs also claimed interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of the suit on Rs.the aggregate amount of compensation claimed by them.The suit was resisted by the Dominion of India contending inter alia that the plaintiffs could not maintain a suit as they were merely consignees acting as commission agents of the consignors and that they were not owners of the goods and as consignees they were entitled only to take delivery of the consignments as agents or the consignors and the plaintiffs had no cause of action for filing a suit for loss of the consignments. It was also contended that under the Risk Note the Railway administration was absolved from liability, that the claim was barred by the law of limitation and that in any event the compensation claimed was excessive and unreasonable.The learned trial Judge held that the railway administration did not bind itself by agreement to carry the goods by passenger train and that in failing to deliver the goods within a reasonable time the railway administration was not guilty of misconduct or negligence. He also held that no cause of action had accrued to the plaintiffs and that in any event under the Risk Notes the railway administration was exonerated from liability to compensate the plaintiffs for loss that they may have suffered. He observed that the plaintiffs as mere commission agents and consignees under the Railway Receipt could not file a suit for compensation for damage to the consignment; and that the claim for compensation in respect of the third wagon was barred by the law of limitation. The learned Judge accordingly dismissed the plaintiffs suit. In this appeal the plaintiffs have not challenged the decree passed by the trial court dismissing their claim for compensation for damage to the third consignment, and have restricted their claim to Rs.ing compensation for damage to the first consignment and Rs.being compensation for damage to the second consignment.

Court's reasoning:
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.