Supreme Court of India
Lakshmi Bangle Stores vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 December, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1990 SCR, SUPL. (3) 457 1991 SCC (1) 448, AIRONLINE 1990 SC 39, 1991 (1) SCC 448, (1991) 1 MAD LW 13, (1991) 5 COR LA 95, (1991) 1 CUR CC 159, (1991) 1 TAC 561, (1991) 2 ACC 1, (1990) 4 JT 614, 1991 SCD 410, (1991) 1 ACJ 262, (1990) 4 JT 614 (SC), 2011 (15) SCC 791
Author: Kuldip Singh
Bench: Kuldip Singh, K. Ramaswamy
PETITIONER:
LAKSHMI BANGLE STORES
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT06/12/1990
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
RAMASWAMY, K.
CITATION:
1990 SCR Supl. (3) 457 1991 SCC (1) 448
JT 1990 (4) 614 1990 SCALE (2)1187
ACT:
Indian Railways Act: Sections 77-B--Suit for damages for
loss of goods--Limitation--Starting point of--Whether con-
signor entitled to change value of consigned goods.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant had booked a Rail-wagon for consignment of
bangles from Ferozabad to Srikakulam on June 3, 1964. He
declared the value of the consigned goods as Rs.25,000 The
wagon loaded with the glass bangles met with an accident on
June 22, 1964 and was damaged. An open assessment delivery
of the goods was made to the appellant on September 4, 1964
at the destination. The appellant found that more than half
of the bangles were damaged.
The appellant claimed damages of Rs.32869.87 on the
ground that the actual value of the bangles was
Rs.56,837.04. The respondents contested the claim inter alia
on the ground that the appellant could not claim damages by
enhancing the value of goods. It was also contended that the
suit having been filed beyond the period of 3 years from the
date of accident, when loss to the property occurred, the
same was barred by limitation under article 10 of the Limi-
tation Act.
The Trial Court held that counting the period of limita-
tion from September 4, 1964, when the extent of loss to the
goods was known, the suit was within limitation. The Court
however dismissed the suit holding that the respondent was
estopped from contending that the value of goods was more
than the declared amount of Rs.25,000.
The High Court, in appeal, reversed the findings of the
Trial Court on the point of limitation as also on valuation.
The High Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was
entitled to claim the value of the consigned goods as
Rs.56,837.04 and the declaration regarding value at the time
of booking the consignment was of no consequence. The High
Court however dismissed the appeal on the ground that the
suit was barred by limitation.
On behalf of the appellant it was contended before this
Court that
458
the counting-point for the limitation purposes has to be
September 4, 1964. On the other hand, it was contended by
the respondents that the appellant could not be permitted to
go back from the valuation of the goods which he declared at
the time of booking the consignment.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: (1) The High Court was not justified in relieving
the railway administration of its burden to establish that
the damage to the goods occurred beyond three years from the
date of the suit. [460G]
Union of India v. Amar Singh, [1960] 2 S.C.R. 75 and
Jetmull Bhojraj v. Darjeeling Himalyan Railway Company
Limited, [1963] 2 S.C.R. 832, referred to.
(2) The knowledge of the accident 'may have given rise
to an assumption that the goods were damaged in the accident
but the burden of proving that the damage occurred 3 years
beyond the date of suit has to be discharged by the rail-
ways. There is no material on the record to show that the
respondents have done so. The High Court was not justified
in relieving the railway administration of its burden. The
finding of the High Court on this issue is, therefore, set
aside. [462B-C]
(3) The appellant should not be permitted to change the
value of the consigned goods at his convenience and to his
advantage. The bills produced by the appellant before the
Trial Court to substantiate the value of the goods must be
in existence at the time of booking the consignment. There
is no explanation whatsoever as to why he declared Rs.25,000
as the value of goods at the time of booking against his
claim of Rs.56,837.04 at the trial. There is no equity in
the stand of the appellant. The rule of fairplay in action'
demands that the appellant be pinned-down to the valuation
of the consigned goods declared by him voluntarily. [463E-G]
Chuni Lal v. Governor General, A.I.R. 1949 Mad 754, ap-
proved.
JUDGMENT: