FIRM KALURAM SITARAM Vs. DOMINION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a judgment of Shah J- by which he dismissed the plaintiff's suit. It appeare that the plaintiff consigned four silver bars to self from the Victoria Terminus Station. Bombay, to Ballia which is situated on the Oudh Tirhut Railway. The records of the Oudh Railway show that these bars reached Ballia and the records further show that they were delivered to a person who signed his name as Yogendranath in the parcel delivery book maintained by that rail way. The plaintiffs had sent the two railway receipts, under which these bars were despatched, to the Allahabad Bank at Benaras with instructions to deliver the railway receipts to one Yogendranath Ravindranath against payment of the amount for which 'hundis' were drawn. Yogendranath did not make the payment and the Allahabad Bank returned the railway receipts to the plaintiffs in Bombay. ' When the plaintiff made inquiries of the railway authorities as to the bars, he was informed that they had been delivered to one Yogendranath. Thereupon, having served the statutory notice under Section 80, Civil P. C. , the plaintiff filed this suit claiming a sum of Rs. 20,496-15-6 as damages for non-delivery of these four silver bars.

(2.) NOW, before consigning these bars the plaintiff had signed a risk note in form 'x', and the question that arises for our consideration is, what is the liability of the railway administration under that risk note, and in order to determine that liability we have in the first instance to consider the effect of Sections 72 and 75, Indian Railways Act. Section 72 defines the responsibility of a railway administration, for the loss, destruction or deterioration of animals or goods delivered to the administration to be carried by railway, and that responsibility is in all respects the same as that of a bailee under Sections 151, 152 and 161, Contract Act. Sub-section (2) of section 72 renders any agreement which limits the responsibility of the railway administration defined in Sub-section (1) as void. There is an exception to this Sub-section and that exception is that if there is an agreement in writing signed by or on behalf of the person sending or delivering to the railway administration the animals or goods, and is otherwise in a form approved by the Central Government, then an agreement to limit the responsibility may be given effect to. Then section 75 is a statutory limitation upon the responsibility of the railway administration under Section 72 (1), and that section provides that when there are articles mentioned in the second schedule which are contained in any parcel or package and the value of such articles exceeds Rs. 300, the railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the parcel or package. But there is an exception to this limitation of the liability of the railway administration, and the exception is that if the person who sends or delivers the parcel or package containing the articles causes its value and contents to be declared and further if on being required by the railway administration pays a percentage on the value so declared by way of compensation for increased risk, then the responsibility of the railway administration would continue to be the same as under Section 72 (1 ).

(3.) NOW, in this particular case the silver bars which were consigned by the plaintiff are articles which are mentioned in the second schedule. The facts established in the Court below show that these silver bars were not contained in any parcel or package. They were delivered bare unpacked and were carried by the railway administration in that condition, and the first question that we have to consider is whether Section 75 applies to an article which is mentioned in the second schedule which is not contained in any parcel or package. In this case the plaintiff did not declare the value of the silver bars, nor did he pay any percentage on the value and therefore if the silver bars fall within the ambit of Section 75 (1), then undoubtedly the railway administration would not be responsible for the loss of these silver bars. Mr. Banaji's contention for the Dominion of India is that once articles mentioned in Schedule 2 are delivered to the railway administration, Section 75 comes into operation, whether they are contained in a parcel or package or not. Mr. Banaji says that it is difficult to under-stand why the Legislature should have attempted to make a distinction between an article delivered to the railway administration in a parcel or package and an article delivered without its being packed-Mr. Banaji says that the whole principle underlying Section 75 is that when an article is delivered to the railway administration of the nature mentioned in the second schedule, the railway administration takes a greater risk in transporting that article and therefore it is exempted from the liability under Section 72 (1) unless the consignor declares the value of the article and gives an opportunity to the railway administration to decide whether it would carry that article with out charging an additional insurance premium or not. Mr. Banaji further contends that it that is the principle underlying Section 75, that principle should apply whether the articles mentioned in the second schedule are in a parcel or not. We agree with Mr. Banaji that we find it rather difficult to understand why the Legislature should have emphasised the fact that the articles mentioned in the second schedule should be contained in any parcel or package before Section 75 (1) could apply. But it is our duty to give effect to the plain words used by the Legislature about which there is no ambiguity and about which there is no difficulty in construing. Mr. Banaji has relied on certain well established principles that the Court may even in an extreme case do violence to the language of a statute if the Court is satisfied that but for doing so hardship or inconvenience would be caused. But we do not see what hardship or inconvenience would be caused to the railway authority if we construe Section 75 in the manner we are proposing to do. It must not be forgotten that there is no obligation upon the railway administration to carry any article which a consignor wants to consign. Therefore, if a consignor wants the railway administration to consign silver bars which he has not put in a parcel or a package, it would be open to the railway administration to refuse to accept delivery of the silver bars. It would be equally open to the railway administration to insist upon the consignor putting the silver bars in a parcel or a, package so as to attract the application of section 75. But if the railway administration, notwithstanding the clear language of Section 75, chooses to carry silver bars in an open uncovered state, tor railway administration cannot be heard to say that we should so construe Section 75 as to limit the responsibility and the liability of the railway administration although the plain words of Section 75 do not justify such limitation. It must further be borne in mind that as Section 75 constitutes a limitation upon the statutory liability of the railway administration defined in Section 72 (1), this limitation must be strictly construed, and therefore we must again turn to the plain words of the section itself in order to decide what exactly is meant by "articles contained in any parcel or package-" it is suggested by Mr. Banaji that we must read the expression "articles contained in any parcel or package" as articles which constitute a parcel or package, and Mr. Banaji says that once the silver bars were carried by the railway administration they constituted a parcel or a package and therefore Section 75 (1) applied. In my opinion it is impossible to accept that contention. It is clear that Section 75 (1) contemplates two objects; the articles mentioned in the second schedule and the object which constitutes the container for the article. Therefore, unless you have a parcel or a package in which the article is contained, Section 75 (1) can have no application. The further words of Section 75 (1) also make it clear that this is the only possible construction of Section 75 (1) because Section75 (1) requires the consignor to declare the contents of the parcel or package in order to fix the railway administration with responsibility under Section 72 (1 ). The contents of a parcel or package can only be declared provided there is a parcel or a package and something is contained in the parcel or package.