TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Dismissed: Consignees Lack Standing for Damages</h1> The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the plaintiffs, acting as commission agents and consignees, lacked the standing to pursue compensation for the ... - Issues Involved:1. Breach of contract by the railway administration.2. Right of the plaintiffs as consignees to maintain an action for compensation.3. Liability of the railway administration under the Risk Note.4. Limitation period for filing the suit.5. Quantum of compensation claimed.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Breach of Contract by the Railway Administration:The plaintiffs contended that the railway administration committed a breach of contract by not sending the goods by passenger train as requested in the Forwarding Notes. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, stating that the Forwarding Notes expressly requested the Station Master at Kajgaon to dispatch the goods by passenger train, and the Parcel Way Bills were made out in response to these notes. The consignments were instead sent by parcel train from Kajgaon to Itarsi, which constituted a breach of contract. The court cited a recent judgment in First Appeal No. 303 of 1952, which held that dispatching a wagon attached to a parcel train when the Parcel Way Bill was issued in response to a Forwarding Note requesting dispatch by passenger train amounted to a breach of contract. The court also referenced the case of B. B. and C. I. Rly v. Mahaniadbhai Rahimbhai, which held that sending perishable goods by goods train instead of passenger train constituted a breach of contract.2. Right of the Plaintiffs as Consignees to Maintain an Action for Compensation:The court examined whether the plaintiffs, as consignees, could maintain an action for compensation. It was noted that a consignor, consignee, and endorsee of a railway receipt are entitled to file an action for compensation against the railway administration for loss of consignment. However, the court held that a consignee is not a party to the contract of consignment and is merely an agent of the consignor to take delivery of the goods. Therefore, a consignee who is not the owner of the goods cannot maintain a suit for compensation for loss or damage to the goods. The court cited various legal texts and case law to support this position, including Macpamara's 'Law of Carriers by Land,' Halsbury's 'Laws of England,' and several Indian cases. The court concluded that the plaintiffs, being mere commission agents and not owners of the goods, had no cause of action to file a suit for compensation.3. Liability of the Railway Administration under the Risk Note:The railway administration contended that under the Risk Note, they were absolved from liability. The trial judge held that under the Risk Notes, the railway administration was exonerated from liability to compensate the plaintiffs for the loss they may have suffered. This issue was not explicitly addressed in the appeal judgment, as the primary focus was on the breach of contract and the plaintiffs' right to sue.4. Limitation Period for Filing the Suit:The railway administration contended that the claim was barred by the law of limitation. The trial judge held that the claim for compensation in respect of the third wagon was barred by the law of limitation. The plaintiffs did not challenge this part of the decree in their appeal and restricted their claim to compensation for the first and second consignments.5. Quantum of Compensation Claimed:The plaintiffs initially claimed Rs. 10,061/12/- as compensation for damage to the three consignments. However, in the appeal, they restricted their claim to Rs. 7,596-4-0, which included Rs. 3,000/- for damage to the first consignment and Rs. 4,596-4-0 for damage to the second consignment. The trial judge had held that the compensation claimed was excessive and unreasonable, but this issue was not explicitly addressed in the appeal judgment.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaintiffs, as mere commission agents and consignees, had no right to maintain an action for compensation for the loss of the goods. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
