ANANDAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are mentioned below. Two bales of cotton piece -goods were consigned on 4 -10 -1951 by the appellant from the Railway Station, Cannanore, on the Southern Railway to Howrah on the Eastern Railway. Since the consignee did not take delivery of the goods at Howrah, the consignor wrote Ext. A9 dated 21 -4 -1952 to the Station authorities at Howrah for sending back the goods to him at Cannanore at his risk. The appellant was informed by Ext. A12 dated 5 -5 -1952, that the goods were sold in auction by the Railway authorities on 13 -3 -1952 presumably under Section 55 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890. The suit was therefore filed by the appellant to compel the first respondent the Union of India to return the goods and if it is found that the goods were sold, for the recovery of the invoice value of the goods. The two main contentions raised by the respondent are that the suit is not maintainable as no claim was made by the appellant in writing to the Railway administration under Section 77 of the Indian Railway Act, 1890, as it stood before the amendment by Act VIII of 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and that the suit is barred by limitation under the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act. The courts below upheld these defence contentions. The first question to be decided is the interpretation of Section 77 of the Act. Section 77 is in the following terms:

(2.) SECTION 72 of the Act prescribed the general responsibility of the railway administration as a carrier of goods. The measure of responsibility for loss destruction or deterioration of goods is defined by Section 72(1) of the Act to be that of a bailee under Sections 151, 152 and 161 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, subject to the other provisions of the Act. Sections 72 and 77 are included in Chapter VII dealing with the responsibility of a Railway administration as a carrier of goods. Under the general law, a bailee has no right to sell the goods bailed unless such right is conferred upon him either by contract or by any special statute. Section 55 of the Act confers on the Railway administration the power to sell the goods, provided the conditions mentioned in the Section are satisfied. The power conferred on the Railway administration by Section 55 of the Act is in its capacity as a bailee in acting as a carrier of goods. A bailee selling the goods in violation of the provisions of Sections 55 and 56 of the Act will no doubt be guilty of wrongful conversion. In the appeal before us the sale held under Section 55 was found by the courts below to be not valid. Even then the failure to deliver the goods in consequence of such wrongful conversion will result in the loss of goods delivered to the railway administration within the meaning of Section 77 of the Act.