UNION OF INDIA Vs. GAJANAND OIL AND DAL MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal suit is preferred by the South Central Railway, Secunderabad against the judgment and decree rendered by the District Judge, Adilabad in O.S. No. 6 of 1976 on his file instituted by the Respondent for recovery of damages in a sum of Rs. 17,251/- on account of non-delivery of pulses booked at the Railway Station, Himayatnagar situate in Maharashtra State.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the above appeal lie in a narrow compass and may be briefly stated:

(3.) That there was entrustment of goods to the Appellant for being carried to Adilabad was not denied. It was also not in dispute that the goods were not delivered to the Respondent. The factum of seizure of the goods by DW 2 was also not doubted. Mr. P. Venkatarama Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant however contends that the Appellant enjoys immunity under Sec. 73(d) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 and that no liability can therefore be fastened upon the Appellant for non-delivery of the goods to the Respondent. Sec. 73 of the Indian Railways Act, deals with the general responsibility of a railway administration as a carrier of animals and goods. A railway administration is charged with responsibility thereunder for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery, in transit, of animals or goods delivered to the administration to be carried by railway. The liability ceases to exist in nine categories of cases. One such category is where the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of the goods is due to seizure of the goods under legal process. The railway administration claiming exemption must however prove that it has used reasonable foresight and care in the carriage of the animals or goods. The words 'foresight and care' are of wide amplitude and should not be understood to apply to the carriage of the goods only. In the case of non-delivery of the goods due to seizure of the same under legal process the 'care' to be exhibited by the railway administration takes within its ambit an obligation to intimate the factum of seizure of the goods to the consignor/consignee within a reasonable time from the date of seizure so as to enable him to pursue his lawful remedies to recover the goods from the concerned authority that seized the goods under legal process.