Union Of India VS. Amar Singh

Case Law No.478, Reporting JudgeSubbarao

Linked as:

Summary

The respondent booked certain goods on September 4, 1947, with the N. W. Railway at Quebec in Pakistan to New Delhi.

The wagon containing the goods was received at the Indian border station of Khem Karan on November 1, 1947, duly sealed and labelled indicating its destination as New Delhi.

It reached New Delhi on February 3, 1948, and was unloaded on February 20, 1948, but no immediate information was sent to the respondent. On June 7, 1948, the respondent was asked by the E. P. Railway to take delivery of the goods lying at New Delhi station but when the respondent went there the goods were not traceable. Again, on July 24, 1948, the respondent was asked to take delivery of the goods when only a small portion of the goods 76

were offered to him subject to the payment of Rs. 1,067-8-0 as freight but the respondent refused to take delivery. On August 4,1949, the respondent filed a suit for Rs. 1,62,123 with interest as compensation for non-delivery of goods against the Dominion of India. The trial court found that the E. P. Railway was guilty of negligence in handling the goods and decreed the suit for Rs. 80,000, and on appeal the High Court confirmed the decree.The appellant contended that there was no privity of contract between the respondent and the E. P. Railway and he could only have a claim against the N. W. Railway in Pakistan, and that the suit was barred by limitation.

Held, that there was an implied contract of bailment between the respondent and the E. P. Railway and that Railway was liable for the loss. The conduct of the parties indicated that the respondent delivered the goods to the N. W. Railway with an authority to create the E. P. Railway as his immediate bailer from the point the wagon was put on its rails. The N. W. Railway must be deemed to have had implied authority to appoint the E. P. Railway to act for the consignor during the journey of goods by the E. P. Railway and by force of S. 194 of the Indian Contract Act, the E. P.

Railway became an agent of the consignor. The N. W. Railway left the wagon with the E. P. Railway and the latter consciously took over the responsibility of the bailer, carried the wagon to New Delhi and offered to deliver the goods to the respondent. The respondent also accepted this relationship. From these facts, even if an agency could, not be implied, a tacit agreement between the two Railways to carry the respondents goods to New Delhi could be implied resulting in a contract of bailment between the E. P.

Railway and respondent.

Kulu Ram Maigraj v. The Madras Railway Company, I.L.R. 3 Mad. 240, G.I.P. Railway Co. v. Radhakisan Kushaldas, I.L.R.

5 Bom. 371, Bristol and Exeter Railway v. Collins, VII

H.L.C. 194 and De Bussche v. Alt, (1878) L.R. 8 Ch. D. 386, referred to.

Held, further that the suit was not barred by limitation.

Even if art. 30 of the Indian Limitation Act applied, as contended for by the appellant, the burden was on the appellant, who sought to non-suit the respondent, to establish that the loss occurred beyond one year from the date of the suit. Thus the appellant had failed to establish by any clear evidence.

See the full content of this document

Extract

Union Of India VS. Amar Singh

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA Vs.

RESPONDENT: AMAR SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/10/1959

BENCH: SUBBARAO, K.

GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.

SHAH, J.C.

CITATION: 1960 AIR 233 1960 SCR (2) 75

CITATOR INFO : F 1962 SC1879 (23)

E&D 1974 SC 923 (51)

E 1980 SC 431 (9)

ACT: Contract-Implied contract of bailment--Goods entrusted to Pakistan Railway for delivery in India-Pakistan Railway handing over goods to Indian Railway-Loss of goods-Liability of Indian Railway to consignor-Limitation for suit for compensation for loss -Indian Contract Act, 1872 (IX of 1872), ss. 148 and 194-Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908) Schedule 1, arts. 30 and 31.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 478 of 1957.

Appeal from the judgment and decree dated August 17, 1954, of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi, in Regular First Appeal No. 76 of 1952, arising out of the judgment and decree dated December 15, 1951, of the Court of Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi in Suit No. 169 of 1949/409 of 1950.

77 Ganapathy Iyer and D. Gupta, for the appellant.

Gurbachan Singh and Harbans Singh, for the respondent.

1959. October 28. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SUBBA RAO J.-This appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature for Punjab at Chandigarh is directed against its judgm...

See the full content of this document