H.R. Khanna, J. - (1.) THE question as to what is the meaning of the word 'damage' as used in section 74 -A of the Indian Railways Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) arises for determination in this second appeal filed by the Union of India against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby he accepted the appeal of Raunaq Singh respondent and awarded a decree for recovery of Rs. 1826/8/ - in favour of the plaintiff -respondent against the defendant -appellant.
(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that two consignments consisting of pipes with sockets were booked from Jetty (near Calcutta) to Delhi as per railway receipts Nos. 150576, dated 18th February, 1956 and 150589 dated 23rd February, 1956. At the time of the delivery of the two consignments, there was found a shortage of 148 sockets in one consignment and 122 sockets in the other consignment. The plaintiff, who was endorsee of the railway receipts, filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 2430/ - on the allegation that he suffered damages to the extent of the above amount on account of the non -delivery of the above sockets. The non -delivery of the sockets was ascribed to the misconduct and negligence of the railway administration. The suit was resisted on behalf of the railway administration inter alia on the ground that the consignor did not pack the goods according to the conditions prescribed in Goods Tariff and the railway administration as such was not liable for the damages under section 74A of the Act except on proof of negligence or misconduct. The trial Court found that the goods had not been packed in accordance with condition 19(f) of the Goods Tariff and entry to that effect was made by the consignor. It was further held that section 74A of the Act applied and under that section the railway was not responsible except upon proof of negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway administration. The plaintiff was further found to have failed to prove any misconduct or negligence on the part of the railway administration or its employees. The price of each socket was found to be Rs. 10/8/ -. As a result of its findings, the trial Court dismissed the suit.
(3.) ON appeal the learned Additional District Judge reversed the finding of the trial Court on the point that section 74A of the Act exonerated the railway administration from its liability in the present suit. It was held that section 74A of the Act did not apply to this case. The appeal of the plaintiff -respondent was, accordingly accepted, and a decree for recovery of Rs. 1826/8/ - was awarded in his favour, parties being left to bear their own costs throughout.;