ST. JOSEPH TEXTILES versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 681 · Decided: 17-12-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
ST. JOSEPH TEXTILES 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 17, 1992 
[KULDIP SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.) 
Indian Railways Act, 1890: Sections 77 and 78-R.esponsibility of 
Railway Administration for delivery of goo~laim for damages-When 
maintainable. 
A 
B 
The appellant-firm booked goods by Railways for carriage to its C 
customer and sent the Parcel Way Bill and the Demand Draft given to it 
by the customer, to the Bank for clearance. However, the Bank returned 
the Demand Draft and the Parcel Way Bill to the appellant on the ground 
that the payment was not forthcoming. Immediately, the appellant wrote 
to the Station Master of the destination Railway Station to re-book the D 
goods to it. On failing to get back the goods despite repeated requests, the 
appellant filed a suit claiming damages. Earlier, the appellant had also 
given a notice under Section 78 of the Indian Railways Act, claiming" 
damages and all~ng that Railway Administration was grossly negligen~ 
and misconducted itself and was careless in handling the goods and in no~ E 
re-booking and delivering the goods back to the appellant. 
The suit was defended by the Railways, contending that the parcels 
and the Parcels Way Bill were carried by the Railways with due care and 
caution, that the delivery of the parcels was taken against production of 
the Parcel Way Bill and payment of all charges due to the Railways, 20 F 
days after their arrival, that the appellant's request for re-booking of the 
parcels was received about two months after the termination of transit of 
the goods and, therefore, the respondents were not liable for the alleged 
non-delivery of the parcels that occurred after seven days after the ter-
mination of the transit, since they were protected against such non-
delivery by the provisions of Section 77 (2) of the Act. It was also contended G 
that there was no negligence, misconduct or carelessness on the part of its 
servants, and that even assuming that the Railway receipt on which the 
delivery was effected was not a genuine one, the Railways were not liable 
for the loss which occurred after seven days of the termination of the 
transit of the goods at its destination. 
H 
681 
682 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The trial court decreed the suit. In appeal by the respondent~Rail-
ways, the High Court relied upon the provisions of Section 77(2) of the 
Act, and allowed the appeal. 
On the question: whether the respondent Railways could claim the 
protection of Section 77(2) of the Act for the delivery of goods to a wrong 
B 
person against the non-genuine railway receipt since the delivery of the 
goods was not taken for more than seven days after the termination of the 
transit and the wrong delivery of the goods occurred after the expiry of the 
said period. 
C 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Sub-section (1) of Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act 
states that the Railway Administration shall be responsible as a bailee 
under Sections 151,152 and 161 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 for the 
loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of goods carried 
D by RailwayS if such loss etc. has occurred within a period of seven days 
after the termination of the transit of goods. Therefore, to entitle a 
claimant to make claim, the liability on account of loss etc. should have 
arisen within the period of seven days after the transit is terminated. 
From the provisions of Section 77(2) it is clear that the period of seven 
E 
days starts on the expiry of the free time allowed for removal of the goods 
from the Railway premises without payment of wharf age. Under the Rules 
for Warehousing and Retaining of Goods made under the Act, the said 
free time was of three days including the day of arrival of the goods. 
.G 
•H 
[687-G,H; 688-A; 687-E] 
1.2. In the instant case, the goods reached the destination on 
1.7.1973. The alleged wrong delivery was effected on 21.7.1973 i.e., 20 days 
after the goods reached the destination and 11 days from the expiry of 
seven days after the termination of the transit of the goods. Since the 
goods were admittedly lost to the appellant on account of the wrong 
delivery hy the Railways when they were in the premises of the Railways 
the liability of the Railways could be as that of a bailee. The Legislature 
has taken care to limit the period of liability of the Railways by providing 
specifically that notwitf!standing what is contained in Sections

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.