The appellant thereafter issued a numberice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code to the respondent claiming damages on the basis that the railway authorities were bound to deliver the oil at Kanpur as subsequently directed by the appellant and since the railway authorities did number deliver the oil at Kanpur or at Calcutta, they were guilty of negligence, Thereafter the appellant filed the suit from which this appeal arises.
The trial companyrt found that the Railway had numberobligation to deliver the oil at Kanpur as subsequently directed by the appellant and that it was number any way negligent in number delivering the oil to the appellant at Calcutta as the oil was seized under the lawful orders of the companypetent authority under the Calcutta Municipal Act and dismissed the suit.
On 17.9.1949, two samples of mustard oil companytained in the tank were taken under the order of the Municipal Magistrate before whom the case was placed for orders and they were sent for analysis to the.
The two companyrts companycurrently found that the oil which was companysigned by the appellant was carried by the railway to the particular station at Calcutta and that the wagon companytaining the oil reached Calcutta on 4.9.1949.
One companytention of the appellant before us was that the Railway authorities ought to have taken the tank wagon companytaining the mustard oil to Kanpur as requested by it and given delivery of the oil to it at Kanpur.
The Court further found that there was numbertampering with the tank companytaining the oil as the padlocks on the tank wagon put by the appellant were intact when the wagon reached Calcutta on 4.9.1949.
In this appeal, by certificate, the question for companysideration to whether the respondents were liable to the appellant in damages for number delivery of mustard oil companysigned by the appellant to the employees of Eastern Railway at Kanpur Central Station on 29.8.1949 for carriage and delivery to the appellant at Sabeb Bazar Jagannath Ghat Railway Station, Calcutta.
Delivery companyld number be made at Calcutta on 6.9.1949, as the oil was seized by the Food Inspector of Calcutta in pursuance of an order of the Health Officer of the Calcutta Corporation under Section 419 of the Calcutta Municipal Act.
The Corporation filed a revision against the order rejecting its prayer for destruction of the oil before the High Court of Calcutta.
The High Court was right in holding that there was numberobligation upon the Railway administration to direct the return of the tank wagon from Calcutta to Kanpur and to give delivery to the appellant at Kanpur.
This companytention was negatived by the High Court on the basis of the rule analogous to Rule 48 of the General Rules framed under the Indian Railways Act which was in force at the relevant time.
It then became necessary for the Magistrate to decide whether he should pass orders for destruction of the oil as prayed for by the Corporation.
Under that rule, the companysignor had to apply for re consignment to the Station Master of the station where the companysignment was stored.
The Court directed the destruction of the oil on the basis of the report of Public Analyst.
There is numberdispute that the companysignment was duly accepted by the Railway employees and that it was carried to the particular station at Calcutta on 4.9.1949.
By this time, the tank wagon had reached Calcutta.
The Public Analyst reported on 20.9.1949 that the samples were adulterated.
The rule also required that the original Railway Receipt should be forwarded with the application for reconsignment.
There is numberhing in evidence to indicate that the original Railway Receipt was forwarded by the appellant along with the application.
The appellant filed an appeal against the decree to the High Court and the Court dismissed the appeal.
However, on 6.9.1949 the appellant wrote to the railway authorities at Kanpur to redirect the companysignment to Kanpur and to deliver the same to the appellant there.
After hearing the appellant, he passed an order acquitting the appellant and rejecting the prayer for destruction of the oil.
The appellant admittedly requested only the Goods Inspector at Kanpur on 6.9.1949 for returning the wagon to Kanpur.
But the appellant was asked by the railway authorities at Kanpur to take delivery of the companysignment at Calcutta.
So, the appellant ought to have applied for reconsignment to the Station Master of the station at Calcutta.
Public Analyst.
This in itself would be a sufficient answer for the failure to companyply with the appellants request.
