CHHEDILAL PHOOLCHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of the price of undelivered goods by the defendant -railways.

(2.) A bale of cloth was delivered to the Western Railway at Kalal for despatch to Gwalior. The consignment was in the name of the plaintiff. The evidence on record has established that the consignment was in fact loaded in a goods train which left Ajmer for Kishangarh. It did not stop anywhere after its departure from Ajmer till it reached a cutting near the Kishangarh Railway Station. A Watch and Ward man posted at this place noticed that the door of one of the wagons was lying open. He, therefore, informed the Guard. The wagon in question was sealed at Kishangarh and was checked when it arrived at Fulera railway -station. The consignment to the plaintiff was then found to be missing. These facts have been held as proved by the Courts below and it is not permissible for the appellant to challenge these findings of fact in second appeal.

(3.) IN the case of Surat C. S. & W. Mills Vs. Secretary of State ( : A. I. R. 1937 P. C. 152) the Guard of the train was not examined. It was in this context that their Lordships observed that the railway -company was bound to disclose to the consignor 'how the consignment was dealt with throughout the time it was in its possession or control.' Evidently, their Lordships never intended to lay down that even when a train is in motion the railway -company must lead evidence to show how a particular consignment was dealt with.