MOHAMMAD YUSUF Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of two suits brought by the plaintiff-appellant for compensation for goods not delivered to the plaintiff by the Railway administration. Second Appeal No. 464 of 1963 arises out of Money Suit Nos. 31 of 1960 of the Court of the second Munsif, Bhagalpur. The amount claimed in this suit is a sum of Rs. 1310/-. Second Appeal No. 465 of 1963 arises out of Money Suit No. 29 of 1960 of the same court, and the amount claimed by the plaintiff is Rs. 1095. The plaintiff sent a bundle of artificial silk handloom cloth from Bhagalpur Railway station to Saran Railway station. The consignment in Money Suit No. 31 of 1960 was despatched on the 16th December, 1958, in the consignment in Money Suit No. 29 of 1960 was despatched on the 17th December, 1958. The two consignments reached Saran Railway station on the 19th of December, 1958 and the 20th of December, 1958 respectively. The plaintiff went to take delivery of the goods on the 19th of January, 1959 within a period of one month, but he was informed that the goods were stolen on the night between the 12th and 13th of January, 1959. Hence, the plaintiff brought the present suits after serving necessary notices under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff was that the consignments containing artificial silk handloom cloth which was sent by the plaintiff were lost due to misconduct, negligence and carelessness on the part of the Railway employees. As such, the Railway was liable to compensate the plaintiff for the value of the two consignments. Among other pleas, the defendant also urged that there was no misconduct or negligence on the part of the Railway employees and that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree in respect of the claim in the two suits.

(3.) The learned Munsif, however, came to the conclusion that the consignments were kept at the Railway station platform and thus there was a clear negligence on the part of the Railway administration. The loss of the goods, in the circumstances, was, therefore, attributable to the act of negligence and the Railway would be bound to compensate the plaintiff for the loss. The other objections of the defendant were also overruled by the learned Munsif. On appeal however, the learned Additional District Judge of Bhagalpur held that since the plaintiff went to take delivery of the consignment on the 19th of January, 1959, about a month after the arrival of the consignment at the destination station, it could not be regarded as reasonable time during which the Railway administration would be liable to take care of the goods as a bailee in terms of rule 31(2) of the Tariff Rules. The mere fact that the plaintiff went to take delivery of the goods almost one month after the goods were received at Saran Railway station would disentitle him from claiming any relief for the loss of the goods. The learned Additional District Judge relied on Lalji Raja & Sons Firm v. The Governor General of India in Council, (1950) 54 Cal WN 902 and Sarjug Prasad Ishwar Purbey v. Union of India, AIR 1960 Pat 571, where 'reasonable time' has been interpreted as being twenty-four hours during which the Railway administration is bound to keep in its custody the consignment which arrives at the Railway station of destination. As in terms of Rule 31(2) of the Tariff Rules, reasonable time has been interpreted in the said cases, the duty of the Railway administration to be responsible for the safe keeping of the consignment would not extend beyond this period. When the case was put up before the learned Single Judge, some difficulty was felt as to the proper interpretation to be put on this matter, and, he, accordingly, referred it to a larger Bench. Mr. J. C. Sinha, appearing in support of the appeal, has contended that the two decisions upon which the learned additional District Judge relied are no longer good law in view of the clear pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the Union of India v. West Punjab Factories Ltd., AIR 1966 SC 395, where their Lordships have enunciated the extent of the responsibility of the Railway administration for the safe keeping of a consignment after its arrival at the station of destination. Their Lordships have laid down that the responsibility of the railway, which is that of a bailee under sections 151, 152 and 161 of the Indian Contract Act, cannot be curtailed by any departmental rules or standing orders framed by the Railway administration for its own convenience. After referring to certain English decisions and taking into account the difference in the responsibility of the Railway in England as a common carrier and the liability of the Railway administration in India as only a bailee, their Lordships have enunciated the position as follows: