LexUNION OF INDIA versus BRIJLAL PURUSHOTTAMDAS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• • 910 UNION 01<' INDIA v. BRIJLAL PURt:SHOTTAMDAS Augu.11 30, 1968 A [S. M. S!KRl, R. s. BACl!AWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] B Indian Rc;i/ways Act, 1890 (9 of 1890), ss. 74C(3), 74D, 74£ and 80--Goods conJigned aJ owner's risk rate to one rail11·oy adn1inistra1io11 lost through ncgligt·iu:e of anvlhtr railwa,v adn1inistration-Liability of r.dn1inistration to which xoods consigned-Burden of proving negligence. ·rhe respondent consigned goods to the Southern Raih\·ay to be carried lo stations on B.N. Railway. at owner's risk ra.tc. On the goods bein!? lost \\.'hile at slations on B.N. Rai\\l;ay the respondent sued the Union of Jndia as representing the two rJiJv,·av administrations. The Trial Couri decided against the respondent on thC technical ground that the required notices were not duly served, but in the respondent's appeal to the High Court the Union of India conceded that the notices had been duly served on the Southern Rail\\·ay. The respondent elected to ask for a decree :igainst the Southern Railway only. The High Court held that the Southern Railway to which the goods were delivered by the con<>ignor was liable under s. 80 of the Rail"•ay Act to pay con1pcnsation for 1he loss. though the loss was due to the negligence or misconduct of th-~ B.~. Railway. The Union of India appcalC<l to this Court. On hchalf of the appellant it \\"as urged that (i) the negligence or misconduct of the R.N. Raihvay could not he fairly inferred from rhc materials on reco"rd and the respon- dent had not discharged the burden of proof imp0<;~d on him by s. 74C(3) of the Railv.·ays Act; (ii) the Southern Rallway could nor he held liable under s. 80 for the los<> due to !he n-egligencc or misconduct of the scr· vants of the B.N. Railway administrarion. HELD :(i) The burden of proof under s. 74C(3) is discharged if the los:; or misconduct C<Ul fairly be inferred upon the disclosure made under s. 740. [912 GJ c D E Section 740 cn\'isages a disclosure in the form of a precise statement of how the consignment v.1as dcnll v.·ith by the administration follo\\·cd hy F evidcnco at the trial in proof of the st:itcment. ·inc section contemplates rhat the administration should first suhmit its evidence at the trial and it is only \\'hen ncgligcncC or misconduct cannot fairly he inferred from such evidence. that the hurdcn of provin!! the negligence or misconduct shi'its to the consignor. (911 D-FJ If the \\'rittcn statement filed hv the administration disc10scs fact..; \vhich sho\I.· 1hat in the common cou.rsc of event<> the loss would not have G h;.1p~ncd if proper care had been taken, a presumption of negligence i<> rai~cd and it is for the adminisrra.tion to rehut it by contrary evidence. In the ahc;encc of such evidence the court may dra\I.' the infcn.·nce that thl~ J0<:s \Vas cau<>cd hy the negligence of the administration. [913 II) Jn· the present case from the disclosure made by the apocllant the nc!!ligencc of the servants of the R.N. Rail\\·ay could be fairly inferred. [915 DJ H S"ra1 Conon Soinn;nt; & Wrtn·;,1.r: Milli: l.td. India. L.R. 64 LA. 176 and Union of India v. S C R. 14 '. referred to. v. Srcretary of Stnte for .~1ahadeolal, J l 96S] • 3 A c D E F G H UNION v. BRIJLAL (Bachawat, J.) 911 (ii) The High Court was justified in holding the Scuthem Railway liable to pay the compensation. [918 BJ Section 80 provides that in the case of goods booked through over the railway of two or more railway administrations. a suit for compen- sation for loss of goods can be brought against the administration to which the goods were delivered by 'the consignor irrespective of the question whether or not the goods were lost on its railway. The suit can be brought against the other administrations only if the loss occurred on their railways. 1be liability under s. 80 is statutory. The section overrides all agreements purporting to limit the liability of an administration with respect to through booked traffic. [916 A-BJ Section 74E does not restrict or enlarge the liability to be sued under s. 80. In the case of goods booked at owner's risk the effect of s. 74E is that .the Consignor cannot recover compensation for loss except upon proof that the loss was due to the negligence or misconduct of an admi- .nistratlon. [917 E-918 BJ Secretary of State & Ors. v. Afzal Husain, A.I.R. 1920 Oudh. 70 and D. H. Rly. Co. v. Jetmull Bhojraj, A.LR. 1956 Cal. 39
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.