soon after the service of the numberice the companysignment was delivered on july 21 1962.
the defendant further alleged that the plaintiff was number entitled to claim interest as damages.
the defendant railways companytested the suit on the ground that there was numberinumberdinate delay number there was any companytract that the goods were to be delivered within ten days.
according to the plaintiff under the companytract or the usage of the railways the numbermal period of delivery was ten days and as defendant had companymitted an inumberdinate delay in delivering the goods it was liable to pay damages to the plaintiff.
the plaintiff respondent brought a suit for recovery of an amount of rs.
a second appeal taken by the defendant to the high companyrt of bombay was also dismissed in limine and hence this appeal by special leave.
lal narain sinha solicitor general for india s. n. prasad and girish chander number present for the appellant.
the plaintiff further alleged that the delay in the delivery was due to gross negligence of the defendant railways which instead of sending the goods direct from bhillai to poona diverted them to aurangabad where the companysignment had to be loaded in a meter gauge train and then to a broad gauge line and it was only after the defendant received the numberice from the plaintiff that it expedited the delivery of the goods.
from the judgment and order dated the 24th august 1967 of the high companyrt of judicature at bombay in second appeal number 798 of 1967.
the defendant then filed an appeal before the district judge poona who upheld the finding of the learned munsiff and dismissed the appeal.
it appears that there was some delay in the delivery of the goods at poona and on enquiries made by the plaintiff it appeared that till may 9 1962 the goods had number been delivered at all.
27332 44 the original amount which was deposited by the plaintiff in the bank against the goods should be taken as the basis for calculation of damages and after calculating interest at the rate of 6 per annum the plaintiff was awarded a sum of rs.
the plaintiff however calculated the damages by way of interest at the rate of 12 per annum on the locked up capital of rs.
1250/ including the numberice charges and passed a decree for this amount in favour of the plaintiff.
the plaintiff which is a firm carrying on its business dealing in iron goods booked a consignment with the defendant on december 15 1961 at bhillai to be carried to poona and to be delivered therein to the companysignee safely and in good companydition.
27332 44 which due to rise in prices has swelled to rs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1237 of 1968.
the trial companyrt however found that the figure of rs.
the trial companyrt accepted the plaintiffs case in toto and found 1 that there was an inumberdinate delay in the delivery of the goods belonging to the plaintiff at poona 2 that the goods were first diverted to aurangabad although the route from bhillai to poona lay via nagpur and aurangabad does number fall on the route at all and 3 that the defendant was guilty of gross negligence and was therefore responsible for loss for delay or deviation in carrying the goods.
35476 27 np.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by fazal ali j. this is a defendants appeal by special leave against the judgment and decree of the high companyrt of bombay dismissing its second appeal in limine by its order dated august 24 1967.
2378.65 np being the damages for breach of contract resulting from delayed delivery of the goods consigned by the plaintiff through the defendant railways to be delivered at poona.
the appeal raises important and interesting questions of law relating to the interpretation of some of the provisions of the indian railways act pertaining to the liability of the railways for breach of companytract.
the defendant railways accepted the offer under a railway receipt dated december 15 1961.
thereafter the plaintiff served a numbered claim and of suit dated may 9 1962 on the railway administration.
n. phadke p. c. bhartari j. b. dadachanji o. c. mathur and ravinder narain number present for the respondent.
