GUPTA, B. S. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's suit against the railway for recovery of damages has been dismissed. He has now preferred this revision.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY the plaintiff's goods were consigned as a wagon load at railway risk rates. The plaintiff's contention that since the goods were booked at the railway risk rates, the railway was bound to pay the damages because the pipes were found broken when delivery was given at the destination must be accepted.

(3.) THE liability of the railway administration under section 72 of the Railway Act is that of a bailee. It is quite clear from section 74 -C that there is a distinction between the owner's risk and the railway risk, when the railway administration accepts a consignment at the railway risk rates, the liability for damage, destruction or loss is that of the railway administration without the plaintiff being required to prove negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway. No is it open to the railway administration to plead in defence that the packing did not conform to the rules prescribed for packing of the particular goods, or the goods were not otherwise properly packed. Before it accepts a consignment at the railway risk rates, it is its duty to satisfy itself that the packing is in order and according to the Rules. It is open to it to refuse the booking of the goods at railway risk rates if it finds that they are not packed as required by the rules. But having accepted the consignment at the railway risk rates, the railway administration cannot turn round and repudiate its liability on the ground of any defect in packing. Otherwise, there would be no meaning in making a distinction between railway risk/rates and owner's risk rates. Shri Padhye relies on Union of India Vs. Bishwanath AIR 1959 Patna 473 and Sheikh Makbul Vs. Union of India AIR 1960 Orissa 146, both these eases are inapplicable here because there the goods were consigned at the owner's risk.