Shri Madan Lal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
2008 Latest Caselaw 749 Del

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Appellant claimed to have purchased 18 bales weighing 11.7 quintals of cotton hosiery yarn from Dawer Woolen Mills. Appellant claims to be the sole proprietor of M/s Allied Yarn Agency, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. Admittedly the goods in question were delivered to the railway authorities for carriage from Howrah to New Delhi vide RR (document not formally exhibited but at page 139 of the record of the Railway Claim Tribunal). The consignor and consignee named in the RR is Allied Yarn Agency.

3. The goods were admittedly misappropriated, in that, delivery thereof was never offered to the consignee. After issuing the necessary notice under Section 78B of the the Indian Railway Act 1890 and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and receiving no recompense for the value of the goods lost, appellant instituted a suit for recovery of the value of the consignment i.e. Rs. 1,36,884/- together with Rs. 570/- representing the packaging cost, Rs. 2,420/- being the pre-suit interest and Rs. 126/- being miscellaneous expenses for issuing the notices etc.

4. By way of abundant precaution Dawer Woolen Mills the seller of the goods was also imp leaded as a defendant. In the plaint it was averred that if on account of any technicality relatable to the title in the goods being passed is raised and it is found that title remained with M/s Dawer Woolen Mills decree may be passed in favor of Dawer Woolen Mills.

5. defense taken by the railways was that the appellant had no locus standi to file the suit.

6. It may be noted at the outset that on what basis appellant lacked locus standi was not clarified in the written statement. But as would be noted hereinafter it appears that the issue of locus standi was raised with respect to the appellant not being the owner of the goods.

7. With the constitution of the Railway Claim Tribunal the suit was transferred for adjudication to the Tribunal.

8. Madan Lal examined himself as the witness of the appellant. He proved the bill issued by Dawer Woolen Mills as Ex. AW-3/2 which records that 1100 kgs. of cotton yarn hosiery have been sold by Dawer Woolen Mills to the appellant @ Rs. 122/- per kg. The ex-sale value of the goods disclosed is Rs. 1,34,200/-. CST in sum of Rs. 2,684/- has also been billed for. In his evidence, apart from proving the bill, Madan Lal stated that since goods were purchased on credit, at the time when the same were entrusted to the railways price thereof had not been paid to the seller but later on the price was duly paid.

9. Pawan Kumar, partner of Dawer Woolen Mills appeared as AW-2 and accepted having sold the goods under the bill Ex. AW-3/2 on credit. He also stated that thereafter his firm received Rs. 1,36,884/- on various dates as sale price.

10. No receipt evidencing transfer of money from the appellant to Dawer Woolen Mills being proved the learned Railway Claim Tribunal has returned a finding that the appellant lacked locus standi to maintain the suit for reason appellant did not prove ownership of the consignment.

11. All other issues were held in favor of the appellant. The claim failed on account of the finding pertaining to issue No. 1 that the appellant failed to prove ownership of the goods.

12. Section 19 of the Sales of Goods Act 1930 reads as under:

19. Property pases when intended to pass - (1) Where there is a contract for the sale of specific or ascertained goods the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred.

(2) For the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties regard shall be had to the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case.

(3) Unless a different intention appears, the rules contained in Sections 20 to 24 are rules for ascertaining the intention of the parties as to the time at which the property in the goods is to pass to the buyer.

13. Suffice would it be to note that the mandate of law pertaining to transfer of property in goods is clear. Title in the goods passed when the seller and the buyer intend the title to pass.

14. Merely because goods are sold on a credit would not mean that until the money is paid for, title would not pass. It all depends on the intention of the parties and as per the contract.

15. As noted above, in the instant case the seller and the buyer spoke in unison in their evidence that goods were sold on credit. Both were in harmony with each other that title in the goods passed when delivery thereof was given by the seller to the purchaser. Thus, whether payment was made to the seller or not becomes wholly irrelevant.

16. That apart, the railway receipt clearly mentions that the appellant was the consignor as well as the consignee. Railway accepted the goods as a bailee. The railway receipt evidences, apart from the nature and description of the goods entrusted to the railway authorities, the status of the railways as a bailee. It is trite that the bailee is answerable to the person who has entrusted the goods under bailment and must account for the same.

17. Thus, independent of other issues, as consignor as well as the consignee of the goods, the appellant had locus standi to maintain the action.

18. Noting that no dispute was raised with respect to the value of the consignment the appeal stands allowed. Impugned order dated 23.5.1996 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal is set aside.

19. Appellant's claim petition is allowed as follows:

A. A decree is passed in favor of the appellant in sum of Rs. 1,34,200/- being the value of the consignment + Central Sales Tax in sum of Rs. 2,684/- paid thereon.

B. Cost of packaging in sum of Rs. 570/- is also allowed. Pre-suit interest reckoned from 15 days after service of the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure till date of suit i.e. 31.7.1989 @ 9% per annum, restricted to Rs. 2420/- to pre-suit interest claimed is also allowed.

C. Pendente lite and future interest is granted to the appellant on the sum of Rs. 1,36,884/- @ 8% per annum.

D. Appellant shall also be entitled to cost throughout.

20. TCR be returned forthwith.