http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: LAKSHMI BANGLE STORES

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/12/1990

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1990 SCR  Supl. (3) 457  1991 SCC  (1) 448  JT 1990 (4)   614        1990 SCALE  (2)1187

ACT:     Indian Railways Act: Sections 77-B--Suit for damages for loss  of goods--Limitation--Starting point of--Whether  con- signor entitled to change value of consigned goods.

HEADNOTE:     The appellant had booked a Rail-wagon for consignment of bangles  from  Ferozabad to Srikakulam on June 3,  1964.  He declared  the value of the consigned goods as Rs.25,000  The wagon loaded with the glass bangles met with an accident  on June  22, 1964 and was damaged. An open assessment  delivery of the goods was made to the appellant on September 4,  1964 at the destination. The appellant found that more than  half of the bangles were damaged.     The  appellant  claimed damages of  Rs.32869.87  on  the ground   that   the  actual  value  of   the   bangles   was Rs.56,837.04. The respondents contested the claim inter alia on the ground that the appellant could not claim damages  by enhancing the value of goods. It was also contended that the suit having been filed beyond the period of 3 years from the date  of accident, when loss to the property  occurred,  the same was barred by limitation under article 10 of the  Limi- tation Act.     The Trial Court held that counting the period of limita- tion from September 4, 1964, when the extent of loss to  the goods  was known, the suit was within limitation. The  Court however  dismissed the suit holding that the respondent  was estopped  from contending that the value of goods  was  more than the declared amount of Rs.25,000.     The High Court, in appeal, reversed the findings of  the Trial Court on the point of limitation as also on valuation. The High Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled  to  claim  the value of  the  consigned  goods  as Rs.56,837.04 and the declaration regarding value at the time of  booking the consignment was of no consequence. The  High Court  however dismissed the appeal on the ground  that  the suit was barred by limitation. On  behalf  of the appellant it was  contended  before  this Court that 458 the  counting-point  for the limitation purposes has  to  be September  4, 1964. On the other hand, it was  contended  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

the respondents that the appellant could not be permitted to go back from the valuation of the goods which he declared at the time of booking the consignment. Dismissing the appeal, this Court,     HELD: (1) The High Court was not justified in  relieving the  railway administration of its burden to establish  that the damage to the goods occurred beyond three years from the date of the suit. [460G]     Union  of  India v. Amar Singh, [1960] 2 S.C.R.  75  and Jetmull  Bhojraj  v.  Darjeeling  Himalyan  Railway  Company Limited, [1963] 2 S.C.R. 832, referred to.     (2)  The knowledge of the accident ’may have given  rise to an assumption that the goods were damaged in the accident but  the burden of proving that the damage occurred 3  years beyond  the date of suit has to be discharged by  the  rail- ways.  There is no material on the record to show  that  the respondents  have done so. The High Court was not  justified in  relieving the railway administration of its burden.  The finding  of the High Court on this issue is, therefore,  set aside. [462B-C]     (3) The appellant should not be permitted to change  the value  of the consigned goods at his convenience and to  his advantage.  The bills produced by the appellant  before  the Trial  Court to substantiate the value of the goods must  be in  existence at the time of booking the consignment.  There is no explanation whatsoever as to why he declared Rs.25,000 as  the  value of goods at the time of booking  against  his claim  of Rs.56,837.04 at the trial. There is no  equity  in the stand of the appellant. The rule of fairplay in  action’ demands  that the appellant be pinned-down to the  valuation of the consigned goods declared by him voluntarily. [463E-G] Chuni  Lal  v. Governor General, A.I.R. 1949  Mad  754,  ap- proved.

JUDGMENT: