FIRM KIDAR NATH RAJNARAIN Vs. EAST INDIAN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by a film styled the firm of Kidar Nath-Raj Narain from a decree of the Small Cause Court Judge of Agra, dismissing their claim for damages against the East Indian Railway Company.

(2.) The case for the plaintiff firm was that they bought some articles at Calcutta through their agent, who consigned three boxes to them at Agra. One of the boxes was lost in transit, and hence the claim for the price of the goods contained in that box. The defence of the Railway Company was that as the consignor had been a Risk Note they were not liable for the loss. It was further pleaded that the goods consigned to Agra were glass beads which came under the excepted articles, mentioned in the Second Schedule of the Railway Act under Clause (d). The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court hold that the lost goods fell under Clause (d); and the consignor having chosen to give the Risk-Note X, the Railway Company was not liable; The claim was accordingly dismissed. In revision the contention for the plaintiff firm is that the lost goods do not fall under Clause (k) of the Second Schedule of the Railway Act. If they do not fall under the said clause, the giving of the Risk Note X by the consignor does not exonerate the Railway Company from liability. The Clause (k) mentions the articles which are described as "excepted articles ". They are pearls, jewellery and all articles made of glass, china or marble.

(3.) The lost goods, though described in the Risk Note given by the consignor as glass beads, are really what are called in the vernacular as momi motis, that is, wax pearls.