CASE NUMBER
Appeal (Civil) – 210 and 230 of 1968
EQUIVALENT CITATION
1969 AIR 193, 1969 SCR (1) 359
BENCH
SHAH, J.C., BHARGAVA, VISHISTHA
DECIDED ON
15/07/1968
RELEVANT ACT/ SECTION
Colliery Control Order, 1945 – Clause 5, Clause 4, Clause 6(1), Clause 8
Coaching Tariff – Rule-108 – Clause (2), Clause (8)
Clause 20 in Part -III of the Goods Tariff
Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946
Railway Act, Section 56
BRIEF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A quantity of steam coal was booked by Colliery to the appellant company (Kuchwar Lime & Stone Company) to Banjari Station on the Dehri Rohtas Light Railway. The Company accepted the delivery of one part of the consignment but refused the delivery of the other part on November 12, 1954, at Banjari Station.
After correspondence between the parties and the Coal Controller, the Railway Administration served the notice on the Company and Colliery on April 28, 1955. The Railway sold the unclaimed coal at public auction for Rs. 1,050 on June 2, 1955.
After this, the Railway filed a suit against the Company and the Colliery in the Subordinate Court claiming demurrage for 202 days during which six wagons were remained unloaded, detained, and sought a decree for Rs. 17,625/14 after giving credit for the amount realized from the sale of the unclaimed coal. The subordinate court granted the decree of Rs. 1,620, with interest. However, the High Court modified the decision of the trial court and granted the decree for the full period.
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT
- Whether consignee (Company) is liable after refusing to take the delivery of the consignment.
- Is the Railway entitled to demurrage for a full period? Or is it obliged to unload and claim demurrage only for a reasonable period?
RATIO OF THE CASE
The Company contended that the Railway should be granted the demurrage only for 22 when the wagons were detained. The court observed that once the notice is served to the owner, Section 56 of the Railway Act empowers the Railway to sell the consignment after serving the notice to the owner. The six wagons reached Banjari Station on November 12, 1954, and before this, the Company had already denied accepting the goods. It was the duty of the Railway to sell the consignment. The Railway had delayed unloading the wagons and putting them to use after the expiry of the reasonable period.
It was further contended that the Company is not liable for the freight and demurrage to the Railway because there was no privity of contract between the Company and the Railway. Another contention was that the consignee is liable for the payment of demurrage charges as the wagon detained is for his convenience. However, the court said that if the wagon detained is for the benefit of the consignee. If he refuses to take the delivery, he could be held liable to pay for freight and demurrage by the Railway. Therefore, the Company is entitled to pay the freight or the demurrage. The court was unable to hold that the Company is not liable to pay the freight and the demurrage because the Colliery had entered into the contract with the Railway.
DECISION OF THE COURT
The Colliery acted as an agent for the Company in entering into the consignment contract. Therefore, the Colliery supplied the coal in pursuance of the sanction order proposed by the Deputy Coal Commissioner to transport to the appellant-Company in allotted wagons to Banjari Station. Hence, the liability to pay for the freight and demurrage charges lay upon the Company for refusing to accept the delivery. The court observed that the High Court was in error in holding the Company liable to pay the freight and the demurrage for 202 days.
The court further held that as the Company had declined the delivery, the Railway administration could have exercised their power under Section 56 of the Railway Act. The Railway administration was bound to minimize the loss. It was in the position of bailee qua for the Company. After the expiry of a reasonable time for the arrival of goods, the Railway authority should have unloaded the coal from the wagons and put them to use. Hence, the company was liable only for the wharfage. The railway did not act reasonably, as it failed to take action for more than six months. Therefore, the Railway is entitled to demurrage for the detention of the wagons for only one month. A decree for Rs. 2,145/14 was granted to the Railway.
The case analysis has been done by Gracy Singh, a 2nd-year law student from Mody University of Science and Technology, Lakshmangarh, Rajasthan.
Latest Posts
- Job opportunity at EXO Edge, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab, India: Apply Now!!
- Internship opportunity at Vishwas Advisors, Kalyan, Maharashtra, India: Apply Now!!
- Internship opportunity at Kulfi Collective, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India: Apply Now!
- Job opportunity at The Neotia University, Diamond Harbour, West Bengal, India: Apply Now !!
- Job opportunity at Morgan Stanley, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India: Apply Now!!
- Job opportunity at VISA INTELLIGENCE CONSULTANCY LLP, New Delhi, Delhi, India: Apply Now!!
- Job opportunity at Amazon Web Services (AWS), Gurugram, Haryana, India: Apply Now!!
- Job opportunity at Stelcore Management Services Private Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India: Apply Now!!
- Job opportunity at Zscaler, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab, India: Apply Now!!
- Job opportunity at Irish Expert, Delhi, India: Apply Now!!
- Job opportunity at UnitedLex · Gurgaon, Haryana, India: Apply Now!
- Internship opportunity at Vineforce · Nabha, Punjab, India: Apply Now!!
- CLAT-Peeps! (10)
- Current Affairs (2)
- competitions (132)
- Conferences and Seminars (201)
- Webinar (1)
- Course and Workshops (107)
- Debates (46)
- Eassy Competitions (69)
- Fellowships & Scholarships (56)
- Guest Blogs (6)
- important (29)
- Internships and Jobs (2,317)
- interviews (8)
- moot court (180)
- Opportuintes (2,731)
- Job Opportunity (1,191)
- opportunity (2,559)
- Call for papers (475)
- Quizes,fests and others (298)
- Work Opportunity (836)
- Our Blog (1,049)
- Administrative Law (17)
- ADR (13)
- Arms Act (2)
- Case Analysis (205)
- Company law (36)
- Constitutional Law (143)
- Consumer Protection Act (17)
- Contract Law (62)
- CPC (10)
- Criminal Law (140)
- Cyber Law (13)
- Environmental Laws (30)
- Evidence Act (20)
- Family Law (12)
- General (205)
- International Humanitarian Law (8)
- International law (23)
- IPR (10)
- Jurisprudence (13)
- labor laws (7)
- Maritime Laws (1)
- Partnership Act (2)
- personal law (33)
- Taxation (10)
- Tort (64)
- Transfer of Property (2)
- Our Services (11)
- career advice (2)
- others (6)
- Top Stories (524)
- Uncategorized (720)
Archives
- November 2023 (26)
- October 2023 (1)
- September 2023 (5)
- August 2023 (2)
- July 2023 (25)
- June 2023 (23)
- May 2023 (40)
- April 2023 (136)
- March 2023 (124)
- February 2023 (138)
- January 2023 (61)
- December 2022 (39)
- November 2022 (103)
- October 2022 (178)
- September 2022 (342)
- August 2022 (240)
- July 2022 (273)
- June 2022 (196)
- May 2022 (27)
- April 2022 (99)
- March 2022 (190)
- February 2022 (196)
- January 2022 (193)
- December 2021 (152)
- November 2021 (203)
- October 2021 (189)
- September 2021 (177)
- August 2021 (192)
- July 2021 (393)
- June 2021 (293)
- May 2021 (179)
- April 2021 (61)
- March 2021 (46)
- February 2021 (56)
- January 2021 (63)
- December 2020 (86)
- November 2020 (94)
- October 2020 (146)
- September 2020 (220)
- August 2020 (173)
- July 2020 (165)
- June 2020 (119)
- May 2020 (136)
- April 2020 (7)
- February 2020 (37)
- January 2020 (3)
- November 2019 (1)