UNION OF INDIA Vs. ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgement and decree passed by Mr. D.C. Guru, Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur, accepting the case of the plaintiff-respondent that there had been shortage of 521 pieces of aluminium ingots out of 1101 pieces booked under R.R. No. 335029 dated June 19, 1972, from Renukoot to Sambalpur, by the Hindusthan Aluminium Corporation Limited for delivery to the respondent at Sambalpur without the original seal and rivet for which a shortage certificate had been issued by the Railway Administration to the respondent which fact was owing to the negligence and misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration for which the respondent sustained a loss of Rs. 64,723.32 paise and rejecting the case of the defendant-Railway the appellant herein, that in the absence of proof that the articles had been delivered to the Railway Administration and that the employees of the Railway Administration had supervised the loading at the place of booking, the appellant could not be liable for any claim with regard to damages for shortage of the articles merely because of the issue of a railway receipt and a shortage certificate, as the responsibility for carriage of the articles booked at the railway siding of the consignor was that of the consignor and the appellant had incurred no liability therefor.

(2.) The facts of the case pleaded by both the sides, briefly indicated in the foregoing paragraph, have been set out in details in the body of the impugned judgement . Each of the two sides has examined one witness. The learned subordinate Judge has found that on the evidence on record, it can be said that loading had been done under the supervision of the Railway Administration and it had not been established by it that the seals were intact at the time of delivery and in view of the certified copy of the railway receipt (Ext. 9), the original of which has been marked as Ext. A and the shortage certificate, the respondent was entitled to a decree.

(3.) It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that in view of the provisions made in the Indian Railways Act (IX of 1890) (the 'Act', for short), the onus lies on the plaintiff in a suit of this nature to establish the actual loading of the goods for the loss of which claims have been made and if articles had been loaded at the consignor's private siding without the supervision of the Railway staff, as in the instant case and goods had not been delivered to the Railway Administration, no liability of the latter arises. On behalf of the respondent, reliance has been placed on the principles laid down by this Court in (1984) 57 Cut LT 321, Union of India v. Krishna Stores and it has been contended that on the evidence on record, the findings recorded by the learned Subordinate Judge are to be sustained.