AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Phillips, J.—So far as the goods bought from Kaveri Chetty are concerned, it is obvious that plaintiffs can claim no damages and this is
practically conceded in argument. u/s 91 of the Indian Contract Act the other goods had been delivered to Munisami Chetty and properties in them
had passed to him. Plaintiffs in consigning the goods, some of which had never been their property, only acted as Munisami''s agents. If the
property had passed from plaintiffs they have sustained no loss by the non-delivery of the goods and consequently no damages. Dawes v. Peck
(1799) 8 T.R. 330 : 3 Esp. 121 : 101 E.R. 1417 is authority for hoding that consignee alone can sue in such a case and it does not seem |o me that
Section 72(3) of the Indian Railways Act has any application here for the responsibility of the Railway Company is not affected, but that
responsibility is to the consignee and not to his agent, the consignor.
The petition is allowed and plaintiff''s suit is dismissed with costs throughout.