Patna High Court
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Madan Lal Kejriwal And Ors. on 9 November, 1966
Equivalent citations: AIR 1968 PATNA 94
Author: N.L. Untwalia
Bench: N.L. Untwalia
ORDER N.L. Untwalia, J.
1. The plaintiffs-opposite parties instituted a suit against the defendant-petitioner, namely, the Union of India, as owner of the Eastern Railway, Western Railway and Northern Railway Adiministrations for recovery of Rs. 552 on account of the late delivery of a consignment of 179 bags of soapstone powder booked from Dhansa railway station to Barh railway station. According to the plaintiffs case, which has been accepted by both the Courts below, the consignment was booked on 3-5-1962, and ought to nave been delivered at Barh within fifteen days from the date of despatch, that is to say, on or about 18-5-1962. But actually the consignment was delivered on 7-8-1962, that is to say, after a delay of more than two months and a half.
There was fall in market price of soap-stone powder and the plaintiffs had to suffer loss on account of the fall in market rate. They valued and claimed the loss at Rs. 3 per bag. The trial Court allowed it at Rs. 2 per bag. The Lower Appellate Court has affirmed the decision of the trial Court. The Union of India has come up in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Mr. P. K. Bose, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that in view of the provisions of law contained in Clause (d) of Section 78 of the Railways Act the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim damages for late delivery of the consignment on account of loss sustained by them due to fall in market rate. I do not find any substance in the contention of learned counsel. The relevant provisions of Section 78 are: "Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this chapter, a railway administration shall not be responsible . . . (d) for any indirect or consequential damages or for loss of particular market."
It has to be remembered that this provision is not only meant for cases of late deli-very, but is meant for all kinds of cases where damages can legitimately be claimed against a railway administration either for late delivery or for short delivery or for non-delivery, or the like, An owner of goods is not entitled to claim indirect or remote damages or consequential damages or damages for loss of particular market in any of the contingencies, whether it is a case of late delivery or otherwise. Mr. Bose stressed his argument on the expression "for loss of particular market". But this expression would mean that an owner of goods who was entitled to take delivery of the consignment, cannot found his claim for damages on the ground that the goods were meant to be sold in a particular market and they could not be so sold because oi the lute delivery or nondelivery.
He cannot say that ii he would have succeeded in getting due delivery of the consignment he would have made extra profits by selling the goods in a particular market, say, for example, in Sonepur Fair, and on that account, he cannot claim damages. But to claim damages on the ground of fall in market price is entirely a different thing. If the plaintiff would have got delivery of the soapstone powder in the third week of May, 1962, they would have succeeded in selling them at a higher price or, to put it in other words, the goods were more valuable at the time when they ought to have been delivered but were not delivered The plaintiffs had to sustain loss in selling them at a lower rate in August, 1962, and, again, to put it in other words, the goods deteriorated in value due to fall in market price. That being so, I think an owner of the goods is entitled to claim damages from the Railway Administration for late delivery based upon the deterioration in their value due to the fall in market price. Ordinarily, it will be difficult to visualise cases where, on account of late delivery an owner of goods will be entitled to claim damages on any other basis. If there is deterioration to goods in the sense of damages to them, delay or no delay in delivery, within the four corners of the law an owner of goods will always be entitled to claim damages But chiefly on account of late delivery so far I can visualise, by and large fall in market price, if any will be the basis of the claim for damages.
3. I can venture to lend some support to the view I have expressed above from a Bench decision of this Court in the Union of India v. Baijnath Madan Lall, AIR 1951 Pat 219. where the point does not seem to have been pressed on behalf of the Union of India at all that an owner of goods is not entitled to claim damages for loss due to delay in the delivery of the consignment on account of fall in market price. What was pressed before the Bench of this High Court which decided that case was a different point with reference to the principles engrafted in Section 73 of the Contract Act as to what should be the basis of such damages, whether the basis would be the difference between the market price on the date when the goods ought to have been delivered and the price actually fetched by re-sale of the goods, or the difference would be the former price and the market price on the day when the goods were actually delivered.
In spite of the provisions contained in Clause (d) of Section 78 of the Railways Act, I am definitely of the view that a claim based on loss suffered by the owner of the goods due to fall in market price on account of delay in the delivery of the consignment is plainly sustainable.
4. In the result, I hold that there is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed; but I shall make no order for costs.