Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 796 (PAT)

Lakhan Lal And Others v. Union Of India

2001-08-29

S.N.PATHAK

body2001
Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This second appeal-is directed against the judgment passed by the 1st appellate Court in Money Appeal No. 5/78 affirming the judgment of the trial Court passed by Munsif, Barn, in Money Suit No. 225/70. 2. The case of the plaintiff-appellants was that the plaintiff-firm had despatched a consignment of 301 bags of Khesari dal at Barh Railway Station on 3-5-1969. This consignment reached its destination at Calcutta on 13th June, 1969 and was delivered on 18th June, 1969, as a result of which prices of Khesari dal fell down causing loss to the plaintiffs of Rs. 2738.19 paise. The appellants sustained this loss on account of sale of the consignment on a price less than what could have been fetched if the consignment had reached its destination in time. Further case of the plaintiff-appellants was that normally time of reaching the consignment from Barh to Calcutta was 1 1/2 months. However, on account of the negligence on the part of the Railway employees, the consignment reached its destination by a delay of 1 month 15 days, After serving notice under Sec. 78-B of the Indian Railways Act and under Sec. 80 CP.C, the plaintiff-appellants filed the suit for realisation of Rs. 2738,10 paise, 3. The trial Court dismissed the claim of the plaintiff-appellants holding that neither there was" negligence on the part of the Railways in delivery of the consignment nor there was any loss sustained by the appellants on account of the delayed delivery. However, the appellate Court held that there was, of course, some negligence on the part of the Indian Railways in delivery of the concerned consignment, but the appellate Court held that prices of Khesari dal had shot up instead of falling down and, therefore, there was no loss sustained by the plaintiff-appellants. Hence, the appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was confirmed. 4. This second appeal has been admitted on the sole substantial question of law to the effect "whether the judgment and decree dismissing the appeal is erroneous in law after having found in Paragraph 4 of the judgment that there was negligence and misconduct on the part of the Railways". The moot question is whether the appellate Court was justified in dismissing the claim of the appellants. The moot question is whether the appellate Court was justified in dismissing the claim of the appellants. Of course, the appellate Court stated that there was negligence on the part of the Railways in delayed delivery of the suit consignment to its consignee, but since there was no loss sustained by the plaintiff-appellants on account of fall in price, the appellants were not entitled to receive any compensation. It further find that the trial Court and the appellate Court both relied on the weekly bulletins of Bengal Chamber of Commerce (Ext. C reries) and held that prices of Khesari dal at the relevant time had shot up, rather than falling down. Both the lower Courts disbelieved the letters filed by the appellants which were issued from their own agents from Calcutta regarding falling of price of Khesari dal. Reasonings advances by the two lower Court regarding non-acceptance of the letters (which were of course exhibited) was that the letters were issued from the private agents of the appellants and, hence, no reliance could be placed. But, so far weekly bulletins of Bengal Chamber of Commerce are concerned, the Court relied on them because there was some presumption attaching to the same which was rebut-table and the plaintiff-appellants had failed to rebut this presumption. Under Sec. 81 of the Evidence Act, there is presumption attaching to the official Gazettes, newspapers or other journals which are printed and issued under the authority of law. So, the lower Courts relied on the weekly bulletins issued by the Chambers of Commerce, Calcutta. The two lower Courts both held that presumption attaching to the weekly bulletins had not been rebutted by the plaintiff-appellants. So, the findings of the two lower Courts that the plaintiff-appellants had failed to prove that they had actually sustained any loss on account of falling of the price of the consignment, in question, was almost conclusive and final. this Court is not under legal obligation to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the two lower Courts and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff-appellants are not entitled to any relief as claimed by them. 5. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.