Delhi High Court
Brahm Dev Gupta vs Container Corporation Of India & ... on 25 February, 2015
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on :19.02.2015
Judgment delivered on :25.02.2015
+ CS(OS) 2033/2010
BRAHM DEV GUPTA ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr.Akhil Sibal, Mr. Kamal Gupta
and Mr.Abhisehk Gupta,
Advocates
Versus
CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR
.... Defendants
Through Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Rishi K.Awasthi and
Mr. Raghav Ghai, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1 Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff Brahm Dev Gupta
against the two defendants. The first defendant is the Container
Corporation of India Limited (CONCOR) and the second defendant is
New India Assurance Company Limited.
2 The case of the plaintiff is that he is carrying on the business of
import and export under the name and style of M/s D.S.M. International.
He is the sole proprietor. Defendant No.1 is a public limited company.
In the course of its business, the plaintiff had entrusted a consignment
meant for export to defendant No.1 along with relevant documents. The
said consignment/cargo was entrusted to defendant No.1 on 07.04.2010
at its Inland Container Depot (ICD) at Tughlakabad, Delhi. The value of
the consignment, the nature of goods and all other relevant details were
declared and made known to defendant No.1; this consignment was
accompanied by the copy of the invoice; receipt (CRN Slip) was issued
by defendant No.1 acknowledging the aforesaid entrustment.
3 On 10.04.2010, a public notice was issued by defendant No.1
notifying that some of the export cargo kept at its export warehouse at
ICD, Tughlakabad had been gutted in fire which had been broken out on
10.04.2010. On inquiry, it was learnt that the consignment of the
plaintiff was damaged. This consignment was in the exclusive custody
and possession of defendant No.1.
4 M/s Inter Ocean Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. was appointed by defendant
No.1 to conduct a joint survey for assessing the loss and damage which
has occurred. It was reported that the complete consignment of the
plaintiff had been gutted; there was no salvage. This was because of the
fire which had broken out on 10.04.2010.
5 On 15.04.2010, the plaintiff submitted his claim for compensation
to defendant No.1. Submission of the plaintiff is that the
consignment/cargo entrusted to defendant No.1 was covered by an
insurance which was issued by defendant No.2, (New India Assurance
Company Limited). Defendant No.1 had in fact lodged its claim with
defendant No.2 for its claim for damages.
6 The plaintiff is entitled to be compensated. He is restricting his
claim to the value of the consignment. Further submission being that
under the Right to Information Act, the plaintiff had obtained a copy of
the report of the committee constituted by defendant No.1 to inquire into
the causes and remedial measure with regards to the fire which had
broken out on 10.04.2010 and as per their report, they had found that the
system of fire fighting installed at ICD, Tughlakabad is designed for
handling small fires and was completely inept for handling fires of the
intensity which had broken out on 10.04.2010. Submission of the
plaintiff being that he has suffered loss equivalent to Rs.45,01,800/-
being the invoice value of his consignment. Interest at the rate of 12%
per annum has also been claimed. Further submission is that defendant
No.2 is also a necessary party as defendant No.1 has admittedly
obtained his insurance cover from defendant No.2.
7 Written statement was filed by defendant No.1 refuting the
averments made in the plaint. It was not denied that cargo from the
plaintiff had been received containing 61 packages of Rayon/Viscose
Scarves meant for transport; all export consignment received at ICD,
Tughlakabad are booked by rail by a shipping company by executing a
forwarding note (FN) under Section 64 of the Indian Railway Act
(hereinafter referred to as the said Act). This FN contained the terms and
conditions which clearly mentioned that the terms were governed by the
Railways Act, 1989. Any loss or damage, if caused to the cargo shall be
dealt with under the said Act. It was not denied that an accidental fire
had broken out on 10.04.2010 in the ICD godown of defendant No.1 at
Tughlakabad and the consignment of the plaintiff had also been
damaged. It is stated that other exporters had contacted the answering
defendant and settled their grievances. Defendant No. 1 had taken a
liability insurance cover from defendant No.2 which provided a
maximum statutory liability @ 50 per kg. The plaintiff has already
submitted its claim to defendant No.1 which is under consideration.
Defendant No.1 does not have a comprehensive insurance policy from
defendant No.2; the policy taken by the answering defendant is an
indemnifying policy which provides only a maximum damage @ 50 per
kg. towards any third party liability. Further submission being that at
the time of booking of its cargo, an option was available to the party
including the plaintiff to pay the excess % charges on the excess value
of Rs.50/- per kg. of the cargo so booked for transportation by rail and in
that case, the plaintiff could have claimed the actual booked value but
not so now. It is reiterated that the cargo of the plaintiff was not insured
under any comprehensive cover; the plaintiff had not taken any
insurance cover for its cargo which was meant to be delivered at Dubai.
Suit is liable to be dismissed.
8 Separate written statement was filed by defendant No.2. It was
stated that the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties and the answering
defendant i.e. New India Assurance is neither a necessary and nor
proper party. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and
defendant No.2. It was admitted that defendant No. 1 had obtained an
insurance cover from defendant No.2 but it nowhere agreed to
indemnify on any count to a third party. Defendant No.2 has only
provided a limited coverage and amount would become payable to the
party only after the assessment of the loss at the agreed rate of Rs.50/-
per kg. This was clearly in terms of the policy.
9 On 23.02.2011 in view of the submission of the plaintiff,
defendant No. 2 was deleted from the array of the parties.
10 Replication was filed reiterating the averments made in the plaint
and denying the averments made in the written statement.
11 On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed
on 23.08.2011:-
(i) Whether the defendant is a Railway Administration within the
meaning of the expression Indian Railway Act, 1989? If so, to what
effect? OPD
(ii) Whether the liability of the defendant to compensate the plaintiff
for the loss/damage to its goods/cargo is limited to the extent of Rs.50/-
per kg. only, as alleged by the defendant? OPD
(iii) Whether the fire on 10.04.2010 at ICD, Tughlakabad was not
caused by the negligence and/or on account of inadequacy of requisite
fire fighting measures/infrastructure on the part of the defendant? OPD
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.47,56,900/-
as claimed for in the plaint? OPP
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate?
OPP
(vi) Relief.
12 The plaintiff in support of his case has examined himself.
Defendant No.1 has also examined one witness on his behalf.
13 Arguments have been heard. Record has been perused.
14 Issuewise finding reads as under:-
15 The onus to discharge this issue was upon the defendant. The
defendant claimed himself to be a "railway administration" within the
meaning of Section 2 (32) of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. Attention
has been drawn to the Notification dated 21.11.1989 published in the
Gazette of India, Part-I, Section-I, Government of India, Ministry of
Railways, (Railway Board) through its Secretary and proved as Ex.DW-
1/1 It reads herein as under:-
"NOTIFICATION
The Government of India have set up „The Container Corporation
of India Ltd. under the administrative control of the Ministry of
Railways to develop inter modal services and an efficient and reliable
infrastructure for the country‟s foreign trade as well as multi-model
logistics support for domestic trade and industry. By the very nature of
will need to maintain constant coordination with Ports, Railways,
Customs, Shipping lines, road transport, warehousing agencies and
trade and industry for instant information and follow-up for tracking,
supply, inter-area balancing and other operational strategies for
optimal results in the interest of the economy.
2 It has been decided that, in view of the above corporation
performing the operational and marketing functions for organizing
and/monitoring movement of multi-modal traffic on a day-to-day basis
throughout the country, the aforesaid Corporation be designated as an
operational entity for all purpose. "
16 This Notification clearly states that CONCOR has been set up by
the Ministry of Railways and is an operational entity for all purposes.
17 Attention has also been drawn to the Indian Railway Commercial
Manual published by the Ministry of Railways wherein clause 1476
refers to ISO Containers Services. Clause 1476 (b) reads as under
"The Railway Board have authorized CONCOR to issue
CONCOR Inland Way Bill (IWB) in lieu of Railway Receipt and also to
quote and collect all charges directly from the customer."
18 The Indian Railway Rules published on 26.09.2006 by the
Ministry of Railways under its powers under Section 198 of the said Act
have also been perused. „Operator‟ has been defined under Rule 2 (b) to
mean a person who has taken permission to run container trains on
Indian Railways, Regulation of Rail Container Operations are contained
in Rule 7. Category I includes all existing or future Inland Container
Depots including those serving at J.N. Port or Mumbai Port in National
Capital Region like Tughlakabad, Dadri and Gurgaon. The present case
relates to the warehouse and containers at ICD, Tughlakabad. Attention
has also been drawn to the approval process contained in Rule 9. The
modalities for granting permission to run trains which includes
permission to be taken by Category I i.e. the containers depots serving at
Tughlakabad is contained in Rule 11. Submission being that all these
factors show that CONCOR is governed by the said Act and falls within
the definition of a "railway administration‟.
19 These submissions have been refuted. Learned counsel for the
plaintiff submits that the defendant is blowing hot and cold and as and
when it suits the defendant, it has been taking shifting stands. Attention
has been drawn to a judgment of this Court reported as 127 (2006) DLT
517 Mittal Roadways (India) & Anr. Vs. Union of India and Others
wherein the stand of the CONCOR was that it is an independent body
and as such the Railway Claim Tribunal has no jurisdiction upon it.
Submission being that this aspect was decided in favour of the defendant
has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 8081/2006 vide its
judgment dated 05.01.2012; this was a speaking order of the Apex Court
and is binding upon the defendant and he now cannot take up a different
stand that he is not an independent body.
20 To counter this submission, learned counsel for the plaintiff has
placed reliance upon a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported
as III (2014) ACC 99 (Raj.) M/s Manglam Cement Ltd. Vs. Union of
India and Others. Submission being that the Rajasthan Bench has
distinguished the judgment of the Delhi High Court as in that case the
Delhi Bench was only considering the question as to whether CONCOR
(a public sector undertaking) along with the other five respondents were
rightly dropped by the Railway Claim Tribunal from the array of the
parties or not; submission being that the question as to whether the
defendant was a "railway administration" within the meaning of Section
2 (32) of the said Act has not been considered by the Delhi Bench and
the dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court was also on the same
premise; the question whether the defendant was a "railway
administration" had not been gone into.
21 The Gazette Notification (Ex.DW-1/1) published by the
Government of India, Ministry of Railways is an admitted document.
This document clearly states that the CONCOR (the defendant) is under
the administrative control of the Ministry of Railways. The submission
of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that this Notification only deals
with the Inter Modal Services and does not mean that the defendant is a
railway administration within the meaning of Section 2 (32) of the
Railways Act is negatived by a plain reading of the Notification coupled
with the Railway Commercial Manual and the Rules published by the
Ministry of Railways vide its Notification dated 26.09.2006.
22 Ex.DW-1/1 has defined the defendant as an operational entity for
all purposes. It clearly states that the Ministry of Railway has set up the
defendant who is working under its administrative control i.e. under the
administrative control of the Ministry of Railways and the various
purposes for which it has been set up have been detailed in the said
Notification. The Railway Commercial Manual (the text of which has
been quoted supra) shows that the Railway Board (admittedly under the
Ministry of Railways) has authorized CONCOR to issue Inland Way
Bill (IWB) in lieu of railway receipts and to accept all charges directly
from the customers; obviously directions have been given by the
Ministry of Railways to the defendant as the defendant has taken over
the management and operation of ISO containers services including
terminal activities at the Inland Container Depots earlier owned and
managed by the Indian Railway. This is also clear from the preceding
Rule i.e. Rule 1476 (a) which deals with the ISO containers services and
reads as under:-
"1476. ISO Containers Services.- (a) Containers Corporation of
India Ltd. (CONCOR), a Government of India undertaking under the
Ministry of Railways has taken over the management and operation of
ISO container services including terminal activities at the Inland
Container Depots earlier owned and managed by the Indian Railways."
23 The Indian Railways Rules, 2006 define „operator‟ as a person
who has taken permission to run container trains. Category 1 of Rule 7
of the said Rules includes the Container Depot at Tughlakabad. The
instant case is the case of a Container Depot at ICD, Tughlakabad.
24 Section 2 (32) of the Indian Railways Act reads as under:-
"railway administration, in relation
(a)xxxxxxx
(b) A non-Government railway, means the person who is the owner or
lessee of the railway or the person working the railway under an
agreement."
25 Section 2 (37) defines a „rolling stock‟ which includes
locomotives, lenders, carriages, wagons, railcars, containers and
vehicles of all kinds working for railways. Submission of the learned
counsel for the plaintiff on this count that the warehouse of Tughlakabad
is not a container moving on railways and thus does not fit in the rolling
stock within the meaning of Section 2 (37) is a mis-understanding of the
provisions. „Rolling stock‟ which includes a container moving on rails
does not necessarily mean that the container must at all times be in
movement; even as per the case of the plaintiff, these containers were
later put on the trains and the goods of the plaintiff were admittedly then
transported through the railways to port from where they taken to their
ultimate destination.
26 CONCOR is a public sector undertaking and thus a non-
Government railway it is a lessee of the railway. It clearly fits into
definition as laid down in Section 2 (32) of the Act; it is a "railway
administration".
27 The judgment of Mittal Roadways (supra) heavily relied upon by
the learned counsel for the plaintiff was delivered on an application
under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC where the question which had arisen
for decision was as to whether CONCOR along with five other private
respondents was a necessary or a proper party before the Railway Claim
Tribunal or not; it was this position which was affirmed by the Supreme
Court in the SLP. The ambit and scope which had arisen for
consideration in Mittal Roadways both before the Delhi High Court and
before the Supreme Court was on the limited question as to whether the
defendant (CONCOR) in the proceedings before the Tribunal is a
necessary or a proper party and if its presence in those proceedings was
required or not. The question whether the defendant was a railways
administrations within the meaning of Section 2 (32) had not been
considered. This is also clear from the last paragraph of the judgment of
the Supreme Court; the question as to whether the CONCOR essentially
fell within the definition of „railway administration‟ within the meaning
of Section 2 (32) of the Act was not considered.
28 This Court is thus of the view that the defendant has been able to
discharge the onus and has been able to establish that it is the "railway
administration" within the expression of the said Act. This issue is
decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
29 All these issues will be decided by a common discussion.
30 Learned counsel for the plaintiff had made a twofold submission.
His first submission is bordered on the premise that he is not a "railway
administration" within the meaning of the said Act. This question has
been answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Having affirmed this position, the alternate submission of the learned
counsel for the plaintiff is that his claim is even otherwise independent
from the provisions contained in the said Act and his liability cannot be
limited in terms of Section 103 of the said Act as has been sought to be
set up by the defendant. Submission being that he is governed by the
Carriers Act, 1865. Reliance has also been placed upon (2000) 4 SCC
553 Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. Vs. Best Roadways Ltd., (2000)
4 SCC 91 Patel Roadways Ltd. Vs. Birla Yamaha Ltd. as also another
judgment of a Bench of this Court in RFA No.442/2003 M/s Delhi
Assam Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. The Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. delivered on 09.12.2011. Submission being that a
presumption of negligence has to be drawn against the defendant as
admittedly the consignment of the plaintiff had been gutted in a fire in
the warehouse of the defendant for which he has to be held responsible.
31 Learned senior counsel for the defendant has pointed out that the
Carriers Act, 1865 has been repealed and thus the question of
applicability of this Act would not arise. Submission being reiterated
that after this repeal a new Act has been promulgated which is of the
year 2007. Additional submission being that this argument of the
plaintiff is even otherwise not sustainable as issue No. 1 already having
been decided in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant having been
held to be a "railway administration" the provisions of Section 103 of
the Railways Act are applicable; liability is limited; it is only the weight
of the goods for which the plaintiff is entitled to be reimbursed.
32 Evidence adduced by the respective parties has been perused.
PW-1 Sahdev Gupta was the attorney of the plaintiff Brahm Dev Gupta.
He had proved the invoice dated 01.04.2010 as Ex.PW-1/2 which has
valued the goods at Rs.45,01,800/-. The copy of the CRN slip dated
07.04.2010 issued by defendant No.1 (an admitted document) was
proved as Ex.P-1.The public notice issued by defendant No.1 disclosing
the factum that a fire had taken place in their warehouse at ICD,
Tughlakabad has been proved as Ex.P-2. The report of M/s Inter Ocean
Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. appointed by defendant No.1 has been proved as
Ex.PW-1/3. The plaintiff had submitted his claim before defendant No.1
which was through Ex.PW-1/4 dated 15.04.2010. Ex.PW-1/5 and
Ex.PW-1/6 were the documents obtained by the plaintiff under the Right
to Information Act (RTI) substantiating his submission that the fire
safely equipments at ICD, Tughlakabad were inept for handling fire of
the intensity which had broken out on 10.04.2010. Legal notice sent to
defendant No.1 has been proved as Ex.P-4. It is dated 26.08.2010. Reply
to the said legal notice issued by defendant No.1 is dated 01.10.2010
proved as Ex.D-1. This witness was subjected to a lengthy cross-
examination. He admitted that whenever the goods are sent for export,
they are sent to the warehouse of the defendant where a custom
inspection takes places. No formal agreement is reduced into writing
when he handovers goods to the defendant. The defendant raises its bill
which is paid through cheque. The plaintiff has been dealing with the
defendant since the last about 7-8 years. Normally 50-60 consignments
are exported through defendant No.1 annually; goods are directly
handed over to the defendant. Services of a shipping line agency are
taken. It is not necessary to take insurance cover as per international
trade usage. The goods in the instant case were garments. He denied the
suggestion that he has direct dealing with shipping line agency only and
not with defendant No.1. He admitted that the defendant does not
mention the value of the consignment when they raise a bill upon the
plaintiff but the weight of the consignment is mentioned. He admitted
that a sum of Rs.61,000/- has been received as compensation from the
defendant.
33 Defendant No.1 has produced one witness. He was Radhey
Shyam, Senior Manager from CONCOR. He reiterated the defence
taken in the written statement. It deposed that CONCOR works under
the Ministry of Railways in terms of notification Ex.DW-1/1. It was
admitted that defendant No.1 received cargo containing 61packets of
Rayon/ viscose Scarves meant for export by rail by the answering
defendant; this cargo was received from M/s Oak Shipping Services Pvt.
Ltd. at Acharya Niketan, Mayur Vihar. The Carting Order prepared by
the answering defendant was handed over to M/s Oak Shipping Services
Pvt. Ltd and proved as Ex.DW-1/2. All export consignments received at
the ICD, Tughlakabad were booked by rail on the basis of the
forwarding note executed by consignor under Section 64 of the Indian
Railways Act proved as Ex.DW-1/3. The terms and conditions
contained in Ex.DW-1/3 were binding on the parties and the loss, if any,
suffered by the party has to be dealt with under the provisions of Indian
Railways Act, 1989. Defendant No.1 had taken an insurance cover
providing a maximum statutory liability of Rs.50/- per kg. towards any
third party liability which has been proved as Ex.DW-1/4. It was
reiterated that most exporters had taken their claims for compensation;
admitted position being that the plaintiff has also received a
compensation of Rs.61,000/-. It was reiterated that at the time when a
cargo is booked, an option is available to freight forwarder (which in
this case was M/s Oak Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd.) to book the subject
cargo in respect of excess % charge option on excess value of Rs.50/-
per kg. so booked and in such an eventuality the freight forwarder could
have claimed the actual declared value of the cargo from the answering
defendant. The freight forwarder did not exercise this option. The cargo
was destroyed in fire on 10.04.2010 which had taken place at ICD,
Tughlakabad. A survey had been conducted. The plaintiff had not
booked the cargo with the defendant with access % charge booking;
there was no embargo or restriction upon the plaintiff in doing so. The
defendant has no obligation apart from Rs.61,000/- which has already
been received by him. He admitted that he had received to legal notice.
This witness was also subjected to a cross-examination. He denied the
suggestion that defendant No.1 does not maintain the requisite pressure
in the hydrant pumps at ICD, Tughlakabad to deal with a fire;
submission being that it was only the technical expert from the
concerned department who could probably answer the question more
accurately as also the query as to whether jockey pumps were installed
in the premises. He denied the suggestion that the fire safety equipment
such as mechanically driven fire engine, trailer pump etc were not
available at ICD, Tughlakabad and this was the reason for the fire,
which could not be controlled. He denied the suggestion that he is
deposing falsely.
34 Admitted facts which have thus come on record are that the
plaintiff had booked a consignment of 60 Rayon/ viscose Scarves valued
at Rs.47,56,900/- amounting to 400 pieces valued at Rs.1,80,000/- with
defendant No.1. This was on 07.04.2010. Admittedly a fire had taken
place in the godown of ICD, Tughlakabad on 10.04.2010 which had led
to damage of this consignment. A perusal of CRN slip dated 07.04.2010
issued by defendant No.1 (Ex.P-1) shows that 61 packings of readymade
garments had been booked by the plaintiff. This document has been
issued by defendant No.1. M/s Inter Ocean Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. had
submitted their joint survey report (Ex.P-3) which was carried out in the
presence of the plaintiff wherein it was observed that the cargo was
destroyed; there was no salvage. It was also not feasible to ascertain the
exact cause of the fire; it continued for about 7 days. Certain
recommendations were made to defendant No.1. This report (Ex.P-3)
does not state that there was no sufficient equipment available at ICD,
Tughlakabad which had it been available could have saved the fire. The
fire safety equipment i.e. mechanically driven fire engines, transfer
pumps were available at the warehouse so also the hydrant pumps. This
is evident from the testimony of DW-1. Thus, no negligence or lack of
due care can be attributed to the defendant on this count.
35 The documentary evidence of the defendant evidenced that he had
issued a CRN dated 07.04.2010 (Ex.P-1). Ex. P-1 makes a reference to
the carting order (Ex.DW-1/2). This document was issued by Oak
Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff (Admittedly Oak Shipping
Services Pvt. Ltd. was the agency through whom the plaintiff had
booked its consignment with the defendant). This reflects that 61
packets were to be delivered at Jeddah. The weight of the cargo was
1220 kgs and its net weight was 1089 kgs as is evident from Ex.DW-1/4
which is an admitted document. The Bill number was 1138846 dated
01.04.2010. Ex.P-1 also makes a reference to the same bill number as
was found mentioned in the carting order. Ex.P-1 is in fact the very
basis and foundation of the case set up by the plaintiff. The insurance
policy (Ex.DW-1/4) taken by defendant No.1 from defendant No.2 had a
limited liability; there was a maximum statutory liability of Rs.50/- per
Kg towards a third party. Option available to a party to book its cargo in
0% charge on the excess value of 50% per kg of the cargo so booked
was available option to the plaintiff but the plaintiff has admittedly not
used this option. There was otherwise no embargo on the part of the
plaintiff to have opted for this option. At the rate of Rs.50/- per kg, the
plaintiff already stands compensated, he having received an amount of
Rs.61,000/- from the defendant.
36 Section 103 of the said Act deals with the extent of monetary
liability in respect of a consignment. Sub-clause 2 is relevant. It is
extracted herein as under:-
"Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the consignor
declares the value of any consignment at the time of its entrustment to a railway
administration for carriage by railway, and pays such percentage charge as may be
prescribed on so much of the value of such consignment as is in excess of the liability of the
railway administration as calculated or specified, as the case may be, under sub-section (1),
the liability of the railway administration for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or
non-delivery of such consignment shall not exceed the value so declared. tc "(2)
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the consignor declares the
value of any consignment at the time of its entrustment to a railway administration for
carriage by railway, and pays such percentage charge as may be prescribed on so much of
the value of such consignment as is in excess of the liability of the railway administration as
calculated or specified, as the case may be, under sub-section (1), the liability of the railway
administration for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of such
consignment shall not exceed the value so declared."
37 The Carriers Act of 1865 already stands repealed. The defendant
being a "railway administration" within the meaning of the said Act, the
provisions of the said Act are applicable to the inter-se transaction
between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant has rightly
invoked Section 103 of the said Act to limit its liability.
38 Issues No. 2 to 5 are decided in favour of the defendant and
against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 6 (Relief)
39 The case of the plaintiff on all counts must fail. It is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
FEBRUARY 25, 2015
A
