UNION OF INDIA (UOI) OWNING SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER Vs. S. SONRAJ, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER-OF ATTORNEY AGENT, SHAH SUKRAJ POONAMCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Union of India owning the South Eastern Railway, represented by the General Manager, Calcutta, is the. appellant before us. The respondent filed the suit in the City Civil Court, Madras, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,268 -5 -4 being the value of goods entrusted to the Railways for carriage and not delivered, to him. The case of the plaintiff was that on 1st August, 1955, the plaintiff consigned one case containing perfumes, nibs, pencils and other items of stationery of the value of Rs. 3,861 -2 -0 from Madras to Howrah by passenger train. The consignment was accepted by the Southern Railway to be carried at Railways' risk. The goods arrived at Howrah on or about 12th August, 1955. When the plaintiff went to take delivery of the goods, he found two planks of the wooden case broken. He demanded open delivery which was accordingly given. It was found that the goods mentioned in the schedule to the plaint of the value of Rs. 3,068 -5 -4 were short. A certificate of shortage was given. Thereupon the plaintiff laid the claim.

(2.) VARIOUS defences were raised by the defendant. We are not concerned with all of them, except the question whether the appellant - Railways are entitled to claim immunity under Section 75 of the Indian Railways Act (IX of 1890), in that the articles that fell under the second Schedule to the Act were not declared by the plaintiff when the parcel was despatched by the Railway.

(3.) ON appeal by the Railway, the lower Appellate Court, held, on the facts of the case, that the articles missing had been lost within the meaning of Section 75 of the Act, and that the Railway was entitled to protection under Section 75 of the Act on account of the non -declaration of the value of the goods which admittedly came under the Second Schedule. In this view, it dismissed the suit.