ANILINE DYES AND CHEMICAL CO. PROPRIETORS, R.J. MISTRO AND CO. (P.) LTD. Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA (UOI), OWNERS OF THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff, a firm doing business in dyes and chemicals : with head office at Bombay and a branch at Madras, is the appellant. On 21st March, 1959, the plaintiff's head office at Bombay consigned 12 drums of hydro sulphite of soda to self to Salt Cotaurs, Madras. The consignment was booked at Wadi Bunder at railway risk note. The consignment was loaded in wagon No. SRCS. 4976. The wagon left Wadi Bunder at 9 -40 a.m. on 26th March, 1959, and arrived at Kalyan at 1 -30 p.m. the same day. The wagon left Kalyan at 9 -45 p.m. the same day and arrived at Poona at 2 -30 p.m. on 30th March, 1959. There was a break in the journey at Poona so far as the wagon in question was concerned. The wagon was found at 6 a.m. at Poona station yard in front of what is called " Bombay Goods Shed." Subsequently it was sent to another line called " Poona two line." When the wagon was on this line, fire broke at about 8 p.m. on 31st March, 1959. The railway officials at Poona took action to put out the fire, but nothing could be salvaged in proper condition so far as the plaintiff's goods were concerned. Correspondence passed between the parties and ultimately the plaintiff laid the suit on 1st May, 1960, alleging that the loss of the goods was due to the misconduct and gross negligence on the part of the servants of the railway and that due care and caution in handling the goods had not been bestowed. A sum of Rs. 6,048 was claimed as the value of the goods from the Union of India owning the Southern Railway impleaded as the first defendant and the Union of India, owners of the Central Railway impleaded as the second defendant.

(2.) THE defendants contended that the Enquiry Committee which went into the cause of the accident found that the accident was due to causes beyond the control of the Railway Administration, that there was neither negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway or its servants, that all necessary care and caution were bestowed in carrying the goods and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief.

(3.) THE trial Court found that the fire was due to some accidental cause for which the railway was not responsible. On the question of value, the trial Court found that the amount as claimed by the plaintiff was correct. In the result, the suit was dismissed.