- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Lachmi Narain v. Bombay
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiffs appellants brought a suit seeking damages for the loss of certain goods allegedly entrusted to the respondent railway company for despatch. The respondent denied receiving delivery of the goods. At the trial court, both parties gave evidence, and the court held that the goods had not been delivered to the railway company, dismissing the claim for damages. This decree was affirmed on first appeal. The plaintiffs then appealed to the High Court, which heard the case on 19th July 1922. The plaintiffs contended that important documentary evidence held by the respondent had not been produced. The court directed the respondent to produce certain documents, including a tally book and receipt register, which were subsequently examined.
The plaintiffs' case was that on 23rd December 1919, they sent a large package of cloth to the Hathras railway station for despatch to Farrukhabad. A servant of the broker, Maharaj Kishore, requested the Goods office clerk to accept the package. The loading clerk assigned the number 675 on the forwarding note and asked Maharaj Kishore to have the package marked with this number and obtain a railway receipt the next day. However, the package was not physically brought by Maharaj Kishore but was deposited by the plaintiffs in a tin shed within the railway premises, where unaccepted goods were kept under the owner's watch. Maharaj Kishore arranged for the package to be marked with number 675 without waiting for the next day. The package was stolen during the night of 23rd December. Some pieces and the covering ("bardana") bearing number 675 were found near the station fence. The plaintiffs argued that the assignment of number 675 by the loading clerk constituted delivery of the goods to the railway company.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the act of the loading clerk filling the serial number on the forwarding note constituted delivery of the goods to the railway company.
- Whether the plaintiffs had effectively put the goods in the possession of the railway or its authorized agent so as to constitute delivery under Section 140 of the Indian Contract Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiffs Appellants' Arguments
- The plaintiffs sent a large package of cloth to the Hathras railway station for despatch to Farrukhabad.
- A servant of the broker, Maharaj Kishore, approached the Goods office clerk who accepted the package for despatch.
- The loading clerk filled in the number 675 on the forwarding note, which was returned to Maharaj Kishore with instructions to mark the package and obtain a railway receipt the next day.
- The plaintiffs contended that the assignment of number 675 by the loading clerk amounted to registration and delivery of the goods to the railway company.
Respondent Railway Company's Position
- The respondent did not accept delivery of the goods as alleged.
- The package was deposited in a tin shed on railway premises but not accepted by the railway authorities.
- The mere filling of a number in the forwarding note without physical receipt or possession does not constitute delivery.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Section 140 of the Indian Contract Act | Defines delivery of goods by a consignor to a bailee as any act putting goods in possession of the bailee or authorized person. | The court applied this definition to determine that no act by the plaintiffs amounted to delivery to the railway or its authorized agent. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the evidence regarding the delivery of the goods to the railway company. It found that the assignment of the number 675 on the forwarding note by the loading clerk, without any further act of physical delivery or acceptance, did not amount to delivery under the law. The plaintiffs had deposited the goods in a tin shed within railway premises, but this was not acceptance by the railway or its authorized agent. The court relied on Section 140 of the Indian Contract Act, which requires an act that puts the goods in possession of the bailee or an authorized person to constitute delivery. Since no such act was established, the court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove delivery of goods to the railway company, which was essential for maintaining a claim for damages for loss or neglect.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
The direct effect of this decision is that the plaintiffs' claim for damages for loss of goods is rejected due to failure to prove delivery to the railway company. The court did not set any new precedent but applied established legal principles regarding delivery under the Indian Contract Act.
Muhammad Rafiq and Lindsay, JJ.:— This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs appellants for the recovery of damages, on the allegation that they had made over certain goods for despatch to the respondent company and that by the neglect of the latter the goods had been lost.
One of the objections taken to the suit was that no delivery of the alleged lost goods had been made to the respondent company.
Both parties gave evidence. The court of first instance was of opinion that the goods had not been delivered to the railway company and therefore no claim for damages could be maintained against them. The claim was accordingly dismissed.
On appeal the decree of the first court was affirmed.
The plaintiffs came up in second appeal to this Court and the case was heard first by a Bench of this Court on the 19th of July, 1922. On that date an argument was advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs appellants that some important evidence in the possession of the respondent company, though required by the plaintiffs appellants and summoned at their instance, had not been produced and tendered by the respondent company. By an order dated the 19th of July, 1922, the Bench hearing the appeal adjourned the case with a direction) to the respondent company to produce certain documents. One of the railway clerks has been produced today with two documents and has been examined. The documents that he has produced are called the tally book and the receipt register, which is really a file of receipts.
The contention on behalf of the plaintiffs appellants is that they sent one large package containing cloth to the railway station at Hathras for despatch to Farrukhabad on the 23rd of December, 1919. One Maharaj Kishore, a servant of the broker, approached the Goods office clerk of the Hathras railway station with a request that the said package be accepted for despatch to Farrukhabad. Brij Bihari Lal, the loading clerk, filled up a number in the forwarding note presented by Maharaj Kishore. The number was 675. The forwarding note was returned to Maharaj Kishore with a request to call the next day and have the package marked with the number entered in the forwarding note, and obtain a railway receipt. The package in question, it seems, was not brought to the railway station by Maharaj Kishore but sent there by the plaintiffs and deposited in a tin shed within the premises of the railway station. According to Maharaj Kishore, those goods which the railway authorities do not accept are deposited in a tin shed within the premises of the railway station and are watched by a man appointed by the owner of the goods. Maharaj Kishore, without waiting till the next day, got the contractor's man to put the number 675 on the package. During the night of the 23rd of December, 1919, the package in question was stolen. The next morning a formal report was made to the railway police who took up the investigation at once. Twelve pieces of cloth and the covering, commonly known as “bardana,” were discovered by the wire fencing of the station compound. The other pieces were never traced. According to the Sub-Inspector, the “bardana” bore the number 675. The position taken up by the plaintiffs appellants is that the giving of the number 675 by the loading clerk was sufficient to amount to the registration of the goods offered and to the delivery of the goods. We think that on the evidence of Maharaj Kishore the plaintiffs appellants have no case. The mere fact that the loading clerk filled up what is called the serial number in the forwarding note, without doing anything further, would not amount to the delivery of goods to the railway by the consignor. Section 140 of the Contract Act defines delivery of goods in the case of bailees. It is as follows:— “The delivery to the bailee may be made by doing anything which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the intended bailee or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf.”
On the evidence in the present case we are unable to find that anything was done by the plaintiffs consignors which would amount to putting the goods in question in the possession of the railway or any person authorized on behalf of the railway. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with Costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Alert