CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE Vs. ARAMA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is a cloth merchant at Mysore; and his suit against the Mysore Railways for recovery of the value of articles consigned by him, for Interest & notice charges was dismissed with costs by the Munsiff of Mysore. That judgment was reversed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Mysore, and the defendants have filed this second appeal.

(2.) It is admitted by the railways that a bundle of cloth was consigned on 12-3-1945 to the plaintiff from Chamarajanagar, that it was received at the Mysore city railway station and that it was stolen away from there & could not therefore be delivered to the plaintiff. Its value has also been found by both the lower Courts to be Rs. 1,407-1-0. The learned Munsiff was of the view that the plaintiff has not made out that the loss of the parcel was due to want of care or diligence on the part of the railway administration, but the learned Subordinate Judge did not agree with him and observed that, according to the evidence on the side of the defendants, the parcel, after it arrived at its destination station was allowed to lie on the platform and was subsequently found to be missing and he apparently considered that this might be enough to hold that there was such gross negligence as amounted to misconduct on the part of the employees of the Railways who were responsible for its safe custody.

(3.) D. W. 1 the Chief Parcel clerk, of the Railways, has deposed that the bundle was received at the Mysore city Railway station on 12-3-45 at 9-30 P. M, and as the parcel room was full with other parcels, this parcel was kept on the platform and when the plaintiff came to claim it it was found missing. There is no evidence that adequate watch was kept on the parcel which contained goods of considerable value, and leaving it on the public and open platform, certainly lends support to the plaintiff's contention that the loss was due to lack of proper ca.re and diligence on the part of the Railway officials concerned. There was however no issue raised in this matter and apparently the railways did not seriously contend that there was no misconduct. The sole ground that has been taken in the anpeal memo here and which is now strongly pressed before us is that the articles contained in the consignment in question were "Ex-cepted articles" within the meaning of Section 59, Mysore Railways Act. Under that section when any articles mentioned in the schedule annexed to it are contained in any parcel or package delivered for carriage to a Railway Administration and the value of such articles in the parcel or package exceeds Rs. 100/the Railway cannot beheld liable unless the contents of the package have been declared and a percentage paid or engaged to be paid on the value so declared by way of compensation for increased risk.