UNION OF INDIA Vs. SEYADU BEEDI CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Union of India owning the Southern Railway, represented by the General manager, Madras, has preferred these appeals against the common judgment in O. S. Nos. 5 of 1959 and 56 of 1960, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, tirunelveli, decreeing the claim for damages made by the plaintiff (in each of the suits ). It is an undisputed fact that the respondent in each of the appeals consigned beedi parcels with the appellant-railway on 17th September, 1957 for being transported to Colombo and that the goods were drenched by water and damaged oa 17th September, 1957, the very day on which they were loaded on the ship "s. S. Irwin" belonging to the appellant-railway. The learned Subordinate judge Tirunelveli, negatived the pleas put forward by the appellant and decreed? the suits for damages.

(2.) SRI S. K. L. Ratan appearing for the appellant in these appeals argued the appeals mainly on the question of limitation and also to some extent on the question whether there was negligence and misconduct on the part of the railway to make them table for damages.

(3.) ON the merits of the case, we see no sufficient ground to differ from the finding of the trial Court. The goods of the respondents were loaded in No. 3 hatch in the ship and the loading was completed at 12-10 P. M. on 17th September, 1957 and the hatch was battened down. When the hatch was again opened to load other goods at about 2-45 P. M. , it was found that the hold was flooded with sea water. The evidence of D. W. 8, Rama Rao, Marine Superintendent, Southern Railways, and the report Exhibit B-2 made by him show that there was no leak in ship and that in his opinion it appeared to be a case of planned sabotage. The ship was guarded by the employees of the appellant-railway and so the only reasonable inference is that the damage should have been caused either by the wilful acts of the appellant's employees, or by others on account of the negligence of the appellant's employees. We agree with the findings of the learned Subordinate judge that the damage to the goods of the plaintiff in each of the suits was due to the misconduct on the part of the servants of the railway.