Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)Union Of India, Owning Eastern Railway ... vs Jetmall Sukanraj on 21 April, 1971
11. On questions of law, I find myself in agreement with the views expressed by the Madras High Court in Union of India v. Jetmall Sukanraj, AIR 1972 Madras 134. The legislature by omitting the expression 'non-delivery' in Section 77-B, which expression finds mention in other cognate provisions of Chapter VII, has made its intention clear. It is clear that the expressions 'loss', 'destruction', 'damage', 'deterioration' and 'non-delivery' have been used as having separate and distinct meaning. It is only by giving appropriate meaning to these five expressions that the intention of the legislature can be given full effect to. Axiomatically, it is true that where the goods are lost, they cannot be delivered. But, in such a case loss must be pleaded and proved, and where any advantage is sought to be derived out of it, by reason of the provisions of Section 77-B in cases where no declaration was made by the consignor nor any percentage charge was paid, the onus would lie on the railway administration to prove the same. In the present case, the railway administration failed to discharge its onus. It cannot, therefore, deny its liability to pay the compensation to the respondent.
Union Of India vs Mahadeolal Prabhudayal on 23 February, 1965
In Governor General-in-Council (now Union of India) v. Mosaddilal, AIR 1961 SC 725 and, followirig that, in Union of India v. Mahadeolal, AIR 1965 SC 1755, it was held that failure to deliver the goods is a consequence of loss or destruction of goods, it does not give rise to an independent cause of action on which the suit may lie against the railway administration, distinct from a cause of action for the loss or destruction. These decisions, however, were rendered in the context of the provisions as they stood prior to amendments brought by Act 39 of 1961. The said Act brought a sea-change in the situation. Several erstwhile sections of the Act were repealed and replaced by new Sections 72 to 78-B. By reason of the said amendments, the responsibility of the railway was transformed from that of a bailee to that of a common carrier, i.e., insurer. Another significant amendment brought about was that while earlier the Act mentioned only three expressions, namely, 'loss', 'destruction' and 'deterioration', the corresponding provisions after the amendment referred to two additional expressions, namely, 'damage' and 'nondelivery'.
Indian Railways Act, 1890.
Section 23 in The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Kailash Chand Jain And Company on 8 August, 1984
3. Mr. A.B. Ojha, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that non-delivery is the consequence of loss of the goods, therefore, every case of non-delivery is a case of loss, the provisions of Section 77-B of the Railways Act are, therefore, applicable. He relied on Union of India v. Kailash Chand Jain & Co., 1985 ACJ 153 (Allahabad).
The Railways Act, 1989
Union Of India And Anr. vs K. Mansukhram & Sons on 8 September, 1978
It may be mentioned here that the Tribunal has noticed the aforesaid case but preferred to rely on Union of India v. Jetmall Sukanraj, AIR 1972 Madras 134 and Union of India v. K. Mansukhram & Sons, AIR 1979 Gujarat 176.
1