Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

AFAD No. 1249 of 1948

Advocates

Bhabesh Narayan Bose
Noni Coomar Chakravarty

Judges

Harries, C.J
Das, J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Das, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiffs consigned goods from Karachi Bundar (North-Western Railway) to Howrah (East Indian Railway). At destination, the plaintiffs allege the railway company overcharged freight and they paid the disputed sums under protest. Plaintiffs claimed Rs. 4,253-6 in total (Rs. 3,525-14-0 as alleged excess freight, Rs. 420 as interest at 12% per annum, and Rs. 307-10 for other items). The railway's defence was that there was no excess payment and that a booking-clerk's mistake at Karachi Bundar caused the freight calculation to be wrong for the portion of the journey from Karachi Bundar to Gaziabad.

Both lower courts had decreed the plaintiffs' suit in part; the defendants (railway administration) appealed. The lower courts found that the railway had charged a lower rate for the portion from Karachi Bundar to Gaziabad due to a booking-clerk mistake and that the charged rate was the rate leviable for goods carried at the railway's risk.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the excess freight levied at destination falls within condition 6 printed on the back of the forwarding note (specifically whether the clause permitting "re-measurement, re-weighment, re-classification, and re-calculation of rates, terminals and other charges" authorizes recovery of an excess freight discovered at destination).
Whether assignees of the consignee (the plaintiffs) are bound by the conditions printed on the back of the forwarding note.
Whether condition 6 (the clause on the back of the forwarding note) forms part of the contract of carriage between the railway administration and the consignor.
Whether, given admissions at trial that some amounts charged at destination exceeded what was legally payable for a portion of the journey, the trial court must enquire into amounts actually realised on miscalculation and grant relief accordingly.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant (Defendant / Railway Administration) — Principal Arguments

The railway administration relied on condition 6 printed on the back of the forwarding note, contending it had a contractual right to re-measure, re-weigh, re-classify and re-calculate rates and to collect before delivery any under-charged amount; accordingly it was entitled to recover the correct (higher) freight at destination.
The defence also maintained there was no excess payment and that a booking-clerk's mistake at Karachi Bundar resulted in an incorrect lower calculation for part of the journey.

Respondents (Plaintiffs / Assignees of Consignee) — Principal Arguments

The plaintiffs contended they were overcharged and sought recovery of the amounts paid under protest (including interest and other items).
It was contended on their behalf that assignees of the consignee are not bound by the conditions on the back of the forwarding note.
It was also contended that condition 6 was not part of the contract between the parties and hence did not authorize the railway to recover the excess freight.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Chunni Lal v. The Nizam's Guaranteed State Railway Co. Ltd. (I.L.R 29 All. 228 (F.B.))	Full Bench held railway company was not entitled to recover the excess rate at destination under a provision similar to condition 6; the Full Bench stated that recovery would have the effect of altering the contract between the parties.	The court noted the Full Bench decision but observed that reasons were not given for how the contract would be altered. The present court distinguished this decision, treating it as not decisive against recovery under condition 6 as interpreted in the present case.
Secretary Of State For India In Council… (Defendant); v. Harbans Prasad… (Plaintiff) (I.L.R 52 All. 81)	Bench decision held that where a lower freight was charged by mistake on one portion of a multi-railway journey, the railway administration could recover the correct freight at destination under a condition similar to condition 6.	The present court relied on and followed the view expressed in this Bench decision as supporting the proposition that condition 6 permits recovery of the correct rate where a lower rate was charged by mistake.
Sheik Dawood Rowther v. The South Indian Railway Company Limited (I.L.R (1945) Mad. 174)	Madras High Court Bench decision adopted the view that recovery at destination under a clause similar to condition 6 was permissible.	The present court noted this decision as consistent with the Secretary of State v. Harbans Prasad approach and treated it as supportive of allowing recovery under condition 6.
Firm Ramnath Ladhu Ram v. North-Western Railway (A.I.R 1926 Lahore 631)	The Lahore High Court suggested that permitting the railway to realise an excess rate would alter the basic terms of the contract (reasoning supportive of plaintiffs' position).	The present court recorded this authority and expressed the view that the Lahore Bench overlooked that the contract included the conditions printed on the forwarding note; the court therefore did not follow it as controlling against recovery under condition 6.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis centers on the interpretation of condition 6 printed on the back of the forwarding note, which reads:

“That the Railway administration has the right of re-measurement, re-weighment, re-classification, and re-calculation of rates, terminals and other charges at the place of destination and of collecting before delivery of goods any amount that may have been remitted or under-charged.”

The court proceeded step-by-step as follows:

Textual interpretation: The words “re-classification and re-calculation of rates” were read broadly to include not only cases of wrong classification of goods but also cases where a rate charged at the place of acceptance was lower than the rate properly chargeable for the goods. The court emphasized the phrase is of rates, not of goods, and therefore covers mistaken application of a lower rate.
Scope of “other charges”: The court held that the latter part of condition 6 referring to “other charges” is wide enough to encompass the present factual scenario where an incorrect lower rate was applied to part of the journey and a higher correct rate was later due.
Contractual effect and parties' status: The court rejected the contention that assignees of the consignee could claim greater rights than the consignor or consignee; plaintiffs (assignees) have no higher rights. The court also rejected the argument that condition 6 was not part of the contract: the forwarding note explicitly stated that the goods were carried subject to the conditions on the back, and thus those conditions formed part of the contract.
Precedent analysis: The court observed that previous High Court decisions were divergent. It distinguished the Full Bench decision in Chunni Lal (which disallowed recovery but did not provide reasons explaining how the contract would be altered) and treated subsequent Bench decisions (Secretary of State v. Harbans Prasad and Sheik Dawood Rowther) as endorsing recovery under a clause like condition 6. The Lahore decision (Firm Ramnath Ladhu Ram) was recorded but the court considered it overlooked the contractual role of back-of-note conditions.
Application to the present case: On the basis of the above interpretative conclusions, the court held that the railway administration was entitled, under condition 6, to recover at destination the correct higher rate where a lower rate had been charged by mistake.
Outstanding factual point remanded: The court noted that in the trial the railway administration had admitted that the rate charged at destination was in excess of what would have been legally payable by the consignor for a portion of the journey. This factual matter was not properly decided by the lower courts and required further enquiry by the trial court to ascertain the precise amount realised on a miscalculation of the rate properly payable.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

The appeal is allowed. The judgments and decrees of the courts below are set aside insofar as they held that the railway administration was not entitled to recover excess freight at destination under condition 6.

Direct effects on the parties:

The plaintiffs' claim, insofar as it relates to any excess rate that the railway administration was properly entitled to charge under condition 6, is dismissed.
The matter is remitted to the trial court for an inquiry to ascertain the amount actually realised by the railway administration on any miscalculation of the rate properly payable; the trial court is to determine the precise excess (if any) and to grant the plaintiffs relief, if any, only to that extent.
Costs: The appellants (defendants) are entitled to the costs of this appeal. As to costs of the courts below, there will be a decree in favour of the defendants for proportionate costs in accordance with the trial court's calculation of the amount to which the plaintiff may ultimately be entitled after remand.
Harries, C.J. concurred with the judgment.

Broader implications:

The opinion explains and applies an interpretation of condition 6 on the forwarding note permitting recovery of correct rates when a lower rate was charged by mistake. The decision discusses and distinguishes prior High Court authorities but does not itself purport (in the text provided) to identify a new general principle beyond applying condition 6 to the facts of this case. The direct legal consequence is limited to the parties and the remanded factual enquiry described above.

Show full summary ...

Dominion Of India v. Virjee Doyal And Co.

Das, J.:— This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for recovery of certain sums of money which the plaintiffs allege to have paid to the defendants under protest.

2. The plaintiffs' case is that they consigned certain goods from Karachi Bundar, a station on the North-Western Railway, to Howrah, a station on the East Indian Railway. At the place of destination the railway company overcharged the plaintiffs with certain freights which are not legally payable. The Plaintiffs accordingly claim the sum so overpaid with interest at 12 per cent, per annum. The claim was laid at Rs. 4,253-6, viz., Rs. 3,525-14-0 as the excess freight realised and Rs. 420 as interest at 12 per cent. per annum, and Rs. 307-10 on account of certain other items. The defence of the Railway Adminis-tration is that there was no excess payment and that due to a mistake on the part of the booking clerk at Karachi Bunder the freight was calculated wrongly over a portion of the journey from Karachi Bundar to Gaziabad.

3. Both the courts below have decreed the plaintiffs' suit in part. The defendants have preferred the appeal.

4. The findings of the courts below are that the railway administration charged for the goods at a lower rate over that portion of the journey from Karachi Bundar to Gaziabad, and that this was due to a mistake on the part of the booking clerk, and that the rate charged was that leviable for goods which were carried at the rail way's risk.

5. Mr. Bose appearing for the defendants has contended that the railway administration was entitled to the excess rate by virtue of condition 6 which appears on the back of the forwarding note. Clause 6 of the forwarding note is in these terms:

6. The question is whether the excess freight which was levied at destination comes within this condition. The words “re-classification and re-calculation of rates” are obviously intended to cover cases where the railway administration had charged a lower rate than what was payable in respect to the carriage of the goods. It was suggested that this refers only to cases where the goods carried by the railway administration were wrongly classified. This, in my opinion, cannot be accepted because the words are “re-classification and re-calculation of rates” and not of goods. It obviously covers a case where a certain rate was payable for the goods carried, but the rate charged was different from that which was properly payable according to the rules.

7. It also appears to me that the present case would also come within that part of the condition which relates to the realization of other charges.

8. It was contended than the plaintiffs being assignees of the consignee are not bound by these conditions. In any opinion the plaintiffs can have no higher rights than the consignor or the consignee had under the terms of the forwarding note. It is undisputed that these terms bind the consignor.

9. It was also contended that condition 6 appearing on the back of the forwarding note is not a part of the contract. It appears that on the face of the forwarding note it is stated that the goods are earned subject to the conditions on the back of the forwarding note. The contract between the railway administration and the consignor must be considered with reference to the terms contained in the forwarding note. It cannot be suggested that the freight which is mentioned in the forwarding note and the rate which has been charged therein form the sole term of the contract. We must regard all the terms contained in the forwarding note as forming the basis of the contract, and one of the terms is that contained in condition 6. The whole question is as to the interpretation of condition 6 appearing in the forwarding note. I have already stated my view of the effect of the forwarding note.

10. Reference has been made to a number of cases in this Court. These cases do not speak with one voice. I shall now refer to the cases cited at the Bar,

11. On behalf of the plaintiffs respondents reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Chunni Lal v. The Nizam's Guaranteed State Railway Co. Ltd. (1) [I.L.R 29 All. 228 (F.B)]. In that case certain goods were consigned from a station on the Nizam's State Railway to a station on the G.I.P Railway. The goods were charged at the wagon rate. At the station of destination the railway administration found that the goods had been wrongly charged at that rate and the railway administration recovered the proper charges, namely, charges at the maund rate. The question was whether the railway administration was justified in levying freight on the goods consigned, at the maund rate. The Full Bench was of opinion that the railway company were not entitled to recover the excess rate and that r. 31 of the Goods Tariff of the Great Indian Peninsular Railway, which is similar to condition 6 appearing in the present forwarding note, did not empower the railway company to charge the excess. The Full Bench merely stated that this would have the effect of altering the contract between the parties. No reasons are given in the judgment of the Full Bench as to how the contract between the parties would be altered. This decision was distinguished in a later Bench decision of the same Court, Secretary Of State For India In Council…(Defendant); v. Harbans Prasad…(Plaintiff).* (2) (I.L.R 52 All. 81). In that case certain goods had been consigned from a station on the O & R section of the East Indian Railway to a station on the Great Indian Peninsular Railway. The goods had to pass in course of their journey through different railways; It appears that a lower freight was charged on O & R portion of the journey through mistake. The railway administration instead of charging “firs; class rate” which was leviable charged a concession rate (known as Carew's rate) on that portion of the journey. The mistake was discovered at destination and the railway administration recovered the correct freight. The Bench dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the railway administration was entitled to levy the correct rate in view of condition 6 which was similar to the condition which] now appears on the back of the forwarding note as condition 6, and that the case was really one of wrong classification of the rate. The view taken by this Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court has been taken in a later Bench decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Sheik Dawood Rowther v. The South Indian Railway Company Limited (3) [I.L.R (1945) Mad. 174]. Reliance was placed on behalf of the plaintiff respondents on a Bench decision of the Lahore High Court in the case of Firm Ramnath Ladhu Ram v. North-Western Railway (4) (A.I.R 1926 Lahore 631). In that case it was suggested that if the railway administration is allowed to realise the excess rate, that would have the effect of altering the basic terms of the contract. In my opinion the Bench overlooked the fact that the contract between the parties related not merely to the rate actually charged which appeared on the face of the note, but; also to the conditions subject to which the goods were carried. Our attention was not drawn to any decision of this Court.

12. As I have said already the decisions of the different High Courts are somewhat divergent. In my opinion, the real point is—what is meant by the expression “reclassification, and re-calculation of the rate”? I have already said that this expression covers cases where a wrong rate was charged through mistake and it was later discovered that the rates actually charged for the goods carried, were lower than those which were properly chargeable for those goods. In other words, if certain goods are to be charged at a rate which was payable for Class I goods and the rate levied at the place of acceptance of the goods is lower than that, the railway administration can very well claim to charge at the station of destination at the higher and correct rate under this clause. In any event I am of the opinion that the last parts of the condition “other charges” are sufficiently wide to cover a case like this. For these reasons I am of the opinion that the courts below were in error in holding that the administration was not entitled to recover the excess rate at destination.

13. It has been pointed out to us that in the course of the trial the railway administration admitted that the rate actually charged at destination was in excess of what would have been legally payable by the consignor for a portion of the journey. This is a matter which has not been properly decided by the Courts below and this matter should be enquired into by the trial court.

14. In the result this appeal must be allowed.

15. The judgments and decrees of the courts below are set aside. The plaintiff's claim in so far as it relates to the excess rate, which was properly charged by the railway administration should be dismissed. An enquiry will be made in regard to the amount which was realised by the railway administration on a miscalculation of the rate properly payable. This matter will therefore be remitted to the trial Court for ascertainment of the excess amount which was realised by the railway administration on a wrong calculation of the rate actually and properly payable by the plaintiff in regard to the consignment, and for giving the plaintiff relief, if any, only to that extent.

16. As the appeal mainly succeeds the appellants are entitled to the costs of this appeal. As regards the costs of the courts below there will be a decree in favour of the defendants for proportionate costs in accordance with the decision of the trial court as regards the amount to which the plaintiff may be ultimately entitled, on calculation after remand.

Harries, C.J:— I agree.

Dominion Of India v. Virjee Doyal And Co.

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Das, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant (Defendant / Railway Administration) — Principal Arguments

Respondents (Plaintiffs / Assignees of Consignee) — Principal Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Dominion Of India v. Virjee Doyal And Co.

Comments