LexUNION OF INDIA versus M/S. UDHO RAM & SONS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
lllf2 M~ I. 702 SUPREME OOUR'1' REPORTS [1963] UNION OF INDIA v. M/s. UDHO RAM & SONS (J. L. KAPun, K. C. DAs GUPTA e.nd' HAOHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.\ Railway-Losa of good,, in tranait-Negligence of railway .. f11(Jn18-Liability-Indian RailwalfS Act 1890 (IX of 1890) •. 12-Indian Contract Act, 1872 (IX of 1872), •. 151. ' Certain goods consigned by a merchant to the respon. dent. Some of the-goods were lost in transit. The rcspon • dent sued the railway authorities for dcmages for tl1e lo~s on ground that the· 1oss was incurred due to the negli· gence of the railway authorities. The defence raised was that loss occurred due to factors beyond the control of the railway authorities. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. On appeal the High Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and found that the loss was caused by the negligence and misconduct of the railway authorities in as much as the railway police failed to take precaution to sec that no body interfered with the goods. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court by way of certificate granted by the High Court. Held, that the responsibility of the railway under s. 72 of the Indian Railways Act is subject to th~ provisions ofs. 151 of the Indian Contract Act and the Railway as a bailee was bound to take as much care of the goods bat led to it as a man of ordinary prudence would under similar circumstances. The lo!S having taken place due to the negligence of the rail- way servants the railway is liable for the loss incurred. by the respondent. Civn. APPELLATE JuRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 581 of 60. Appeal from the judgment e.nd decree date.d April 23. 1958, of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) Delhi in Civil Regular First Appea.l No. 32-D of 1953. -paunit f,al nnd D. Gupt,a, for th<> appi-lle.ut, • ,, ' f , 2 S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT _REPORTS 703 Gurbachan Singh _and Haibana Singh, for the respondent. 1962. May I. The Judgment of -the Court was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-This, appeal, _on certificate granted by the Punjab High Court, ariaes in the following circumstances. _ M/s. Radha Ram Sohan Lal of Calcutta consigned certain goods to self at Delhi. Of the - consignment, certain articles were not delivered· to M/s. Udho Ram & Sons, the plaintiffs, in whose favour the railway receipt had been endorsed by t-he consigner. Having failed to receive the compensation for the loss suffered on account of the articles not delivered, the suit giving rise to - this appeal was instituted, There is now_ no dispute about the amount of loss determined by the Court, as suffered by the plaintiffs. · The only dispute between the parties is whether the los~ of goods in transit between Calcutta and Delhi was due to the mis-conduct and negli- gence of the railways or not. The Union of India, the defendent, contended that the loss occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the rail- way administration. The trial Court found that the railway i wagon in which' the consignment _ was loaded had been thereafter properly rivetted and sealed at Howrah, that the ·seals and rivet of one door of the wagon were found open when the train which left Howrah at 1. 30 a. m._ on October 1, 1949, reached Chandanpur Station at 3.15 a. m., the l same night, the train having stopped for 14 minutes at the Howrah-Burdwan Link for the home signal at 2. OS a, m., and · that the railway protection police es_corted the t~ain. The High Gourt accepted these fin'dings and they are not questioned. lift Uniono/Itulia v. M/1, U4M"Ram cll·Sotii Raglubar DaJ•I I. IHI Uroinlqflndia v. II /1. Ullo ~ .. , cir Bou 704 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1963] The trial Court, however, found that the precaution taken of posting railway protection police in a good~ train, in view of the frequent thefts in running trl\iDB between Howrah and Cha.nda.npur, amounted to the railways ta.king proper ca.re of the f.!Oods delivered to them as carriers ~nd that therefore the railways were not guilty of any negligence and mis-conduot. It was of the view that the· railway protection police which usually tra.\•elled in the guard's· van, could not p011sibly know what was happening in the wagons at the other and or in the middle of the train during the journey. It therefore dismissed the suit. On appeal, the High Court held the railways responaible for the Joes which, in it.I< view, wa.e due to its neglig
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.