UNION OF INDIA UOI Vs. BRIJLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point, which arises for consideration in this case, is whether in view of the provisions of Section 74-A and the defective packing of the goods the railway administration was not liable for damages.

(2.) In this case nine bales of cloth were booked from Kooperganj (Kanpur) on 18th August, 1956, to Siswa Bazar (Gorakhpur) at railway risk. Delivery of the goods was given one month and seven days after on 25th September, 1956. Two bales were found pilfered and soaked with water. After due notice the plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 510/- as damages. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove any misconduct or negligence on the part of the railway administration and as the plaintiff had not complied with the rules in packing the goods with tarpaulin the railway administration was not liable. The matter was taken up in revision to the District Judge, Gorakhpur, who gave a finding that the railway having failed to prove the condition of the wagon at the time of the loading and the wagon having been found to be badly leaking at the tune of delivery, the railway had to prove how the consignment was , dealt with or that proper care of the goods was taken. The suit was accordingly decreed and so this revision.

(3.) It has been contended by Sri D. D. Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the goods having been packed against the railway instructions without a protecting covering of tarpaulin and there being no evidence that the wagon was leaking at the time of loading, it was for the plaintiff to prove the negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway administration. He has contended that Section 74-A gives complete protection to the railways where goods have been despatched at railway's risk without compliance with the instructions given for packing of goods. For this purpose the parties have relied upon the authorities of Secy. of State v. Firm Jhaddu Lal Hazari Lal, AIR 1933 All 460, Manickam Chettiar v. Union of India, AlR 1960 Mad 149, Dominion of India v. Guruprosad Ram Gupta, AIR 1949 Cal 679 and M. and S. M. Rly., Co., Ltd. v. Ravi Singh Deepsing and Co., AIR 1935 Cal 811, and Triloki Nath v. Governor General in Council, AIR 1951 All 489.