DASA K LAKSHMIAH Vs. UNION GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. The appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 770 principal and interest. The defendant is the Railway Administration which is represented by the General Manager. The 2nd defendant in the suit is the person who agreed to sell certain woollen goods to the plaintiff. The consignment of goods was sent by the 2nd defendant to Hindupur, the plaintiffs place. The order was booked on 24-7-1957 and the goods were handed over to the railway to be despatched to the destination on 13-9-1957. The goods, however, were not delivered to the plaintiff as they were lost. The plaintiff thereupon issued a notice to the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras, and sent copies thereof to the General Managers, Central Railway, Bombay, General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta and the General Manager, Northern Railway, Delhi. The plaintiff did not receive any of the goods or their value from the defendants. He, therefore, filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises on 4-10-58. The plaintiff seeks to make the defendant liable on the ground that the Railway Administration is a bailee under Sections 151 and 152 of the Indian Contract Act and the standard of care expected of them is as laid down in S.152. The plaintiffs case is as bailees, the standard of care required of them is as under the Contract Act. They acted negligently and, therefore, they are liable to pay the plaintiff the value of the goods as claimed in the plaint. Of the General Managers of the Railways, the General Manager, Southern Railway and the General Manager, Central Railway alone appeared in the case and the others reappeared in the case and the others remained ex parte. The defendants inter alia denied their liability because according to them there is no negligence on their part and they have discharged their duty enjoined by law by taking precautions for the safety of the goods.

(2.) The principal question, therefore, that arose for decision in the Courts below was whether the defendants were guilty of negligence in the matter of the transport of the goods that were despatched through the railway. The learned trial Judge held that no negligence was established and, therefore, the defendants were not liable. This decision was affirmed by the lower appellate Court and hence this second appeal.

(3.) The question to be considered is whether the finding of the Courts below that there was no negligence on the part of the defendants is correct. Normally, the question of negligence is based on facts established by evidence in the case. As pointed out in several decisions, the facts on which the negligence is based is one thing and the correctness of the inference from the facts is another thing. The finding of facts which are the basis for establishing negligence which have been found by the Courts below cannot be disturbed. But the inference from the facts established being a question of law, it is open to the second appellate Court to reconsider the question. The foundation for the liability being the general law relating to the standard of care which a bailee is required to take and there being no dispute in the case regarding the basis of liability, the case which the bailee is required to take of the goods bailed to him is that of a man of ordinary prudence would take of his goods of the same bulk and quality and value. The bailee in the absence of a special contract is not responsible for the loss, deterioration or destruction of the goods bailed if he has taken the same amount of care of the goods as described under the Contract Act. This position is also established by decision. The case which is required is also established by decisions. The care which is required of the railways as bailees has been adverted to by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Udo Ram and Sons, AIR 1963 SC 422, (at p. 423). At p. 423, their Lordships observed: