Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. The Supreme Court in the case of Trustees Bombay Port v. Premier Automobiles , has observed as follows:

We are of the view, in reiteration of earlier expression on the same lines, that public bodies should resist the temptation to take technical pleas or defeat honest claims by legally permissible but marginally unjust contentions, including narrow limitation. In this and similar cases, where a public carrier dissuades private parties from suing by its promises of search for lost articles and finally pleads helplessness, it is doubtful morality to non-suit solely on grounds of limitation, a plaintiff who is taken in by seemingly responsible representation only to find himself fooled by his credibility. Public institutions convict themselves of untrustworthincss out of their own mouth by resorting to such defences.
Reiterating the same approach, the Supreme Court in Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International , has observed:
We do not think that this is a fit case where we should proceed to determine whether the claim of the respondent was barred by Section 11 of the Madras Port Trust Act (II of 1905). The plea of limitation based on this section is one which the court always looks upon with dis-favour and it is unfortunate that a public authority like the Port Trust should, in all morality and justice, take up such a plea to defeat a just claim of the citizen. It is high time that governments and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens, and do what is fair and just to the citizens. Of course, if a Government or a public authority takes up a technical plea, the court has to decide it and if the plea is well-founded, it has to be upheld by the Court, but what we feel is that such a plea should not ordinarily be taken up by a Government or a public authority, unless of course the claim is not well-founded and by reason of delay in filing it, the evidence for the purpose of resisting such a claim has become unavailable.

13. Railway is a premier carrier of goods in our country. Courts have taken notice, however, of its always coming forward with technical pleas of limitation almost ritualistically adhering to the letters of the statute. Courts have made observations off and on such conduct of the Railway and have gone to the extent of saying that in such matters it behaves like a worst litigant. The instant case is one in which the Railway could have taken notice of its own communication to the first plaintiff admitting the loss when by its letter dated 19.7.1973 it informed the first plaintiff that the consignment in question was involved in a fire accident which took place on 26.3.1972. Until 19.7.1973, there could still be some anticipation of delivery. We cannot conceive a case in which thinking that goods have not been delivered within such time as the consignment could have reached its destination, in the usual course a suit is filed and later goods are delivered in good condition. It is only on the knowledge of loss and nondelivery that one is expected to issue a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not before that.