Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1205 (PAT)

Firm Udai Ram Jwala Prasad v. Union Of India

2000-10-25

INDU PRABHA SINGH, N.PANDEY

body2000
Judgment N.Pandey and I.P.Singh JJ. 1. This is a plaintiffs miscellaneous appeal against the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, dated 30th August, 1990 whereby and whereunder the claim application was dismissed. 2. As would appear from the materials on record, the suit consignment was booked through R.R. dated 2.12.1981 at Delhi. When the consignment reached to the destination and delivery was made, the plaintiff noticed damage and also shortage in different bags of rice. The Railway Administration also issued shortage/damage certificate, which could be evident from the order itself. The plaintiff, therefore, filed instant claim for realisation of damages along with interest which allegedly occurred due to negligence of the respondent-Railway. 3. As would appear from the impugned order the plaintiff had suffered loss due to damages of different bags. Respondents have also not disputed that sufficient loss was caused to the plaintiff. The dispute was only raised with respect to period of limitation in lodging the claim for damages. According to the Claims Tribunal, the period of three years for filing such claim would start from the date the consignment had actually reached to the destination and not from the date the open delivery was made. In this case the consignment had reached to the destination on 27.2.1981, therefore, according to the Claims Tribunal the suit should have been filed by 10.4.1984 after giving allowances of two months for the notice as required under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure whereas the suit was filed on 22.5.84. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the instant case claim was made with respect to the shortage and damages of the consignment. Therefore, the period of three years would run from the date of the open delivery of the consignment. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Union of India V/s. Jogenra Chandra Naha and other (1971 Patna 24) as also another decision of a learned single Judge in Central Coal Fields Ltd. V/s. The Union of India and ors. ( 1993 BBCJ 371 : 1993(2) PLJR 49 ) to show that in such cases the period of limitation would start when the delivery was made. 5. ( 1993 BBCJ 371 : 1993(2) PLJR 49 ) to show that in such cases the period of limitation would start when the delivery was made. 5. As would appear from the impugned order the Claims Tribunal in support of its finding has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Union of India V/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others (1969 Patna 154), whereby a learned single Judge of the Court had of course held that the limitation starts from the date of the arrival of goods and not from the date of open delivery. But, probably it was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the views expressed in the aforesaid judgment was, in fact, disapproved by a Division Bench in the case as reported Union of India V/s. Jogendra Chandra Naha and other (supra). It was held in specific terms that generally and ordinarily, the loss can only be detected when open delivery is given. 6. In our view, having regard to the facts of the case as well as the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench, the findings of the Claims Tribunal can not sustain. As a result of the views expressed above, we hold that the claim for damages, as made out by the plaintiff, was within time and, therefore, entitled for a decree of damages. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the Claims Tribunal is set aside to the extent indicated above with a direction to the authorities to make payment of the damages as claimed by the plaintiff. But in the circumstances of the case there would be no order as to costs.