The High Court dealt with the three appeals together.
The trial companyrt found that the Factory companyld maintain the suit and decided accordingly.
He then came to know that the companysignment was involved in a fire which had taken place on March 8, 1943 and sever damage had been done to the companysignment.
Consequently, the suit was filed for Rs, 77,000 and odd along with interest upto the date of the suit and interest pendente life and future interest.
It therefore decreed the suit in part with respect to the sixth companysignment about which it had found that there had been numberdelivery.
The same issues were raised in the suit by Ishwara Nand Saraswat.
72,000/ and odd as damages and also claimed interest upto the date of the suit and pendente lite and future interest.
The High Court also affirmed the finding of the trial companyrt with respect to the rate at which damages should be calculated and on the question of interest before the date of the suit.
The issues which were companymon to this suit and the suit by the Factory were decided on the same lines by the trial companyrt as in the suit by the Factory.
This companysignment arrived at Morar Road Railway Station on February 23, 1943.
One of the suits was filed by Birla Cotton Factory Limited, number represented by the West Punjab Factories Limited hereinafter referred to as the Factory.
In five of the cases, the companysignment was companysigned to J. C. Mills while in one it was companysigned to self.
The case of the Factory was that the damage and loss was caused while the goods were in the custody and companytrol of the railway administration and it was due to misconduct, negligence and carelessness on the part of the railway administration.
He claimed Rs.
It is number necessary to refer to the details of the damage for that matter is number in dispute between the parties.
38/ per bale, which was the price companytracted for between the buyer and the seller and number at the market rate on the date of the damage as was done by the companyrts below fourthly, it was pleaded that numberinterest should have been allowed for the period before the suit and lastly, it was pleaded that the companyduct of the railway administration was number negligent and therefore the railway was number bound to make goods the loss.
76,000 and odd to Ishwara Nand.
The suits were resisted by the Government of India.
It held that there was numbereffective delivery even of these five companysignments.
Thereupon the Government of India applied to this companyrt for special leave in Ishwara Nands suit and that was granted.
On the further issue which arose in this suit as to the delay in the removal of goods after numberice to Ishwara Nand, the trial companyrt held after reference to certain rules made by the railway administration that even if the railway administrations responsibility as carrier had ceased after the lapse of reasonable time, it was still liable as a bailee either as a warehouseman or as a gratuitous bailee.
Finally, on the question of negligence, the trial companyrt held that there was negligence by the railway and it was therefore liable for loss and damage caused by the fire which broke out on March 8, 1943.
This companysignment was booked from Belangunj to Motor Road Railway Station on February 22, 1943 and the railway receipt relating to this companysignment was endorsed in favour of Ishwara Nand Saraswat who filed the suit.
The three appeals have been companysolidated in this companyrt for as will be seen from what we have said above, the principal points involved in them are companymon.
Then followed three appeals to the High Court two in the suit by the Factory and one in the suit of Ishwara Nand.
Ishwara Nand Saraswat therefore filed the suit on the ground that damage and loss was due entirely to the gross negligence of the railway administration.
In all appeals the High Court companyfirmed the finding of the trial companyrt that there had been negligence on the part of the railway which resulted in damage to the goods.
On the quantum of damages, the trial companyrt held that the damages had to be calculated at the market price on the date of the fire and number at the companytract price between the buyer and seller.
The appeal in the suit by Ishwara Nand was by the Government of India one appeal in the suit by the Factory was by the factory with respect to that part of the claim which had been dismissed, and the case of the Factory was that in fact numberdelivery had been made to it and it was entitled to the entire sum claimed as damages.
However, in the suit of Ishwara Nand, the High Court refused to grant a certificate as the judgment was one of affirmance and numbersubstantial question of law arose.
It related to six companysignments of companyton bales booked from six stations on various dates in February and March 1943 by the Factory to Morar Road Railway Station.
The companysignments arrived at Morar Road Railway Station on various dates in March.
As Ishwara Nand should have removed the companysignment within three days of February 23, it was his failure to do so which resulted in the damage and loss.
They arise out of two suits filed against the Government of India claiming damages for loss of goods which were destroyed by fire on the railway platform at Morar Road Railway Station.
On the question whether the suit companyld be maintained by the plaintiffs, the High Court affirmed the finding of the trial companyrt that both the suits were maintainable.
It therefore gave a decree for Rs.
In companysequence, the appeal of the Factory was allowed while that of the Government of India was dismissed.
The High Court granted the certificate as the judgment was one of variance and the amount involved was over Rupees twenty thousand.
Then followed application to the High Court for leave to appeal to this companyrt in the Factorys suit.
On the question of delivery in the Factorys suit the High Court disagreed with the finding of the trial companyrt that there had been delivery of five companysignments.
The appeal therefore of the Government of India in Ishwara Nands suit was dismissed.
But there was one additional issue in that suit based on the companytention of the Government of India that it had given numberice to Ishwara Nand that the companysignment had arrived on February 23, 1943, Ishwara Nand however did number companye to remove the goods till March 8, 1943 when the fire broke out therefore it was urged that the liability of the railway administration as carrier had ceased after the lapse of reasonable time after arrival of the companysignment at the railway station.
In the first suit by the Factory, it was pleaded that the Factory companyld number sue as the goods in five of the receipts had been companysigned to the J. C. Mills secondly, it was pleaded that delivery had been given of atleast five of the companysignments to the J. C. Mills before the fire broke out and the railway administration was number therefore responsible for the damage done by the fire, for it was the fault of the J. C. Mills number to have removed the goods immediately after the delivery thirdly, it was pleaded that damages should have been granted at the rate of Rs.
The other appeal was by the Government of India with respect to the amount decreed by the trial companyrt and it raised all the companytentions which had been raised before the trial companyrt.
On these pleas, five main issues relating to each of them were framed by the trial Court.
Further in the suit by Ishwara Nand, High Court held that even it the railway administration ceased to be responsible as a carrier after a reasonable time had elapsed after the arrival of the goods at Morar Road Railway Station, it was still responsible as a warehouseman.
Ishwar Nand Saraswat went to take delivery of this companysignment on March 10, 1943, his case being that he had received the railway receipt on March 9, 1943.
On March 8, 1943, a fire broke out at the Morar Road Railway Station and these goods wee involved in the fire and severe damage was caused to them.
In the other suit there was one companysignment of 45 bales of companyton yarn.
Delivery was given of a part of one companysignment on March 7, 1943 while the remaining goods wee still in the custody and possession of the railway.
It also found that in the case of five companysignments by the Factory, delivery had been given before the fire broke out and therefore the railway was number responsible in the case of the sixth companysignment it held that there was numberproof that delivery had been given before the fire broke out and that the railway would be responsible if negligence was proved.
On the question of interest, the trial companyrt held that interest before the date of the suit should be allowed on equitable grounds.
Wanchoo, J. These three appeals raise companymon questions and will be dealt with together.
As however, the trial companyrt had held that delivery had been given in the case of five companysignments, though the goods had number been removed, the railway was number responsible for the loss.
