NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY Vs. RAM LAL GOLCHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the North Eastern Railway and the Union of India as owner of that Railway and is directed against the decision of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Purnea, dated 31-7-1954, passed in Money Suit No. 87 of 1949/ 4 of 1954. The plaintiff, respondent brought the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1, 24, 556V-besides interest pendente lite and future as compensation for the non-delivery of 880 bales of jute weighing 3080 mds. as also the price of tarpaulins and corrugated iron-sheets payable by the North Eastern Railway Administration.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff, briefly stated was that he booked 1210 bales of jute, each bale weighing 3 1/2 mds., from Jogbani Railway Station on the O. T. Railway, as it then was, to Manihari Ghat Railway Station on 19-4-1948, and on the same date he also booked 1005, bales of jutel each bale weighing 3 1/2 mds., from Forbesganj Railway Station on the same Railway, to Manihari Ghat Railway Station. The plaintiff learnt that the goods consigned from Jogbani were loaded in open trucks covered by the Railway authorities by the corrugated iron-sheets and tarpaulins supplied by him at the request of the Railway employees. The engine of the train was attached immediately in front of the open trucks forming the goods train which started from Jogbani as a special train in charge of a Traffic Railway Inspector. When the special goods train arrived at Forbesganj, the other open trucks containing the bales of jute loaded at that station were also attached to the special train coming from Jogbani and thus the fifteen open trucks coming from Jogbani and the thirteen open trucks attached to the train at Forbesganj formed one special goods train. The train reached safely Katihar Railway Station at 5 a.m. on the morning of 20-4-1948, accompanied by Prem Singh, Ramji Sardar, Manmal and others who were the plaintiffs' employees and accompanied the consignment as directed by the Railway authorities at Jogbani Railway Station. They were also travelling by the same goods train although they were seated in the guard's van. The goods train was detained unusually at Katihar. The trucks were taken to the yard and detained there for over six hours with numerous engines running to and fro nearby. The men of the plaintiff protested against this but the Railway authorities did not listen to their protests. The special train started from Katihar at noon when the sun was very hot and as a result coal-smoke and sparks emerged out of the funnel of the engine which was dangerously adjacent to the open trucks. The Railway Traffic Inspector who was escorting the train from Jogbani disappeared and the train was left solely in charge of the engine driver and a guard. The plaintiff was given to understand that the Traffic Inspector would escort the train safely from Jogbani to Manihari Ghat but the undertaking was not fulfilled by the Railway Administration. When the train passed Marshi Railway Station, one of the wayside stations between Katihar and Manihari, and had not travelled more than two miles from Mansahi, fire broke out in the truck near the engine.

(3.) The driver of the engine noticed the fire, detached the engine and ran away with it towards Manihari leaving the trucks to their fate. The plaintiff's men who were in the train exerted hard to collect the local villagers and could thus detach some of the trucks which had not caught fire, pushed them back and brought them to Mansahi. The jute loaded on eleven trucks, one after another, was wholly gutted. Of these seven trucks contained the jute booked at Jogbani and four out of the thirteen booked at Forbesganj. The fire was caused on account of the wilful misconduct, gross negligence and recklessness of the Railway Administration and its employees. It was alleged further that the plaintiff never signed any risk notes in for A and C and did not authorise any employee to do it. On account of the non-delivery of ' the goods' as aforesaid, notices under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act and under Section 80 of the C. P. C., were duly served on the proper authorities by registered post but the Railway Administration did not care to compensate the plaintiff for the loss caused by the gross negligence and misconduct of the Railway employees. The suit was brought accordingly for recovery of the aforesaid amount.