UNION OF INDIA Vs. CHABILDAS MANIKDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil Revision Petition arises out of a small cause suit filed by the respondent against the petitioners Railways. The respondent consigned to the Railways earthenware in a full wagon by booking it at Bahadurgarh Railway Station on 8-12-1972 for delivery at Hyderabad. Open delivery of the goods was taken at Hyderabad on 22-12-1972. Four packages of earthenware were found broken. Towards the cost of that broken earthenware, the respondent filed the suit against the Railways to recover a sum of Rs. 798-80 ps. The Additional Judge, City Small Cause Court, who tried the suit found misconduct and negligence on the part of the Railways and accordingly decreed the suit. Aggrieved by that the Railways have preferred this revision petition.

(2.) The earthenware was not packed in wooden cases, but it was packed in grass and tied with ropes. In ex. B-3 forwarding note, there is a specific endorsement signed by the consignor to the effect that the packing conditions are not complied with and goods are liable for breakage and on that condition the goods were accepted by the Railways. As provided under S. 77-C of the Indian Railways Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) when the goods tendered to the railway administration to be carried by railway are either defectively packed or packed in a manner not in accordance with the general or special order if any, issued under sub-sec. (4) of that Section, the railway administration shall not be responsible for any damage, except upon proof of negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway administration or any of its servants.

(3.) According to the Railways, for fragile goods like earthenware etc. P-17 packing condition for outer packing as laid down under R. 120 of the Goods tariff General Rules framed as provided under S. 77-C (4) of the Act would apply goods must be packed in wooden cases. With regard to this the Lower Court has found that D. W. 1, Senior Goods Clerk, who was examined on behalf of the Railways is not able to show how P-17 packing condition is applicable even when the consignment was booked in a full wagon, and therefore on the ground that P-17 packing condition is not applicable to the consignment, found negligence on the part of the Railways and accordingly decreed the suit.