SOUTH INDIAN RAILWAY COMPANY LTD Vs. VMKSDANDAYUTHAM CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the S.I.R. Co. This petition is to revise an order of the District Munsif of Udumalpet awarding damages to the plaintiff for the loss caused to him on account of rain leaking into the waggon, as a result of which 15 bags out of the 141 bags of rice consigned to him were found wet. The defendant company claimed exemption from liability for the damage caused as the goods were sent under risk note form H. Under this contract the company will be liable if it is proved that the damage was caused on account of the misconduct of the Railway Department or its servants. The question is whether there has been such misconduct as is contemplated by the risk note form H in this case. It is admitted-see D.W. 1-that the bags of rice became wet on account of the rain blowing into the waggon through the crevices of the doors; but there is evidence that the waggon in which the goods were despatched was found watertight at the last periodical examination on 1 July 1930, and also when it was re- examined on 12 November 1931. It was between these dates that the goods were carried by the company. In M. & S.M.Ry. Co. V/s. Sunderjee Kalidas 1933 Cal. 742, it was pointed out that misconduct is not necessarily established by proving oven culpable negligence. It is something opposed to accident or negligence and is the intentional doing of something which the doer knows to be wrong or which he does recklessly not caring what the results may be.

(2.) In B.B. & C.I. Ry. Co. Rajnagar Spinning Weaving and Manufacturing Co. 1930 Bom. 129, it was held that the word misconduct suggests that a railway servant has been guilty of doing something which was inconsistent with the conduct required of him by the rules of the company. In the absence of proof that there was any breach of duty by the railway servant or any infringement of the rules which regulate their terms of employment, no fair inference of misconduct on the part of the railway administration servants could properly arise.

(3.) Having regard to these decisions, and (the evidence in the case which shows that there was no negligence on the part of the railway company as the waggon in which the bags were sent was water, (tight, it is difficult to hold that misconduct on the part of the railway department or its servants has been proved.