| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1971 SLG 3096 1971 SLD 3096 = 1971 PLD 139 |
Dacca High Court
Appeal from Original Decree No. 50 of 1961, decided on 17th April 1970.
Presented By: Maksum-ul-Hakim and T. H. Khan, JJ
The Surat Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. The Secretary of State for India-in-Council and another 41 C W N 837 ref. Siddique Ahmed Chowdhury, Senior Government Pleader for Appellant. Kamal Hossain with Muzammel Huq Khan and A. Rab II for
Respondent.
Appeal from Original Decree No. 50 of 1961, decided on 17th April 1970.
Presented By: Maksum-ul-Hakim and T. H. Khan, JJ
The Surat Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. The Secretary of State for India-in-Council and another 41 C W N 837 ref. Siddique Ahmed Chowdhury, Senior Government Pleader for Appellant. Kamal Hossain with Muzammel Huq Khan and A. Rab II for
Respondent.
PAKISTAN-Appellant
VERSUS
MESSRS ADAMJEE JUTE MILLS LTD-Respondent
Law: Railways Act (IX of 1890)
Section: 72(1), 80
(a) Railways Act (IX of 1890), S. 72(1)-Suit against Railway for loss of goods-Locus standi-Consignor, in principle, entitled to sue carrier-Consignee acquiring right in and title to property can also sue. It was contended that it is the consignee alone who can bring a suit for loss etc. against the Railways and the consignor has no locus standi to sue. Held : Having regards to the provisions of section 72(1), Railways Act, 1890 and definition of bailment in section 148, Contract Act, 1872 it is clear that under this contract the railway is the bailee and it is the consignor who is the bailor. Section 151 of the Contract Act requires that the bailee should take such care of the goods as a man of ordinary prudence would take of his own goods under similar circumstances. Section 161 of the Contract Act enjoins that if due to the default of the bailee the goods are not returned or delivered or tendered at the proper time then the bailee is responsible to the bailor for any loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods. From this provision it is obvious that the bailee, that is to say, the railway is liable for damages to the bailor that is to say, the consignor if the loss is due to the negligence of the railway. It is clear therefore, that the person who entrusts the goods to a carrier is ordinarily entitled to sue the carrier for any loss or damage sustained by him due to the negligence or default of the carrier. The responsibility of the bailee, that is to say, the carrier is terminated only when they delivered the goods in accordance with the terms of the contract or disposes of the same as under taken under the contract. From the above it is evident that on principle as well as on authority the consignor is entitled to sue the carrier for any loss sustained by him. This, however, does not rule out circumstances where the consignee is also entitled to sue the carrier for the loss. The consignee, if acquires title to the property, either by arrangement with the consignor or in accordance with the original contract in between the consignor and the carrier, can, under certain circumstances, acquire a right to recover damages. That does not, however, mean that…