JUDGMENT

RAY, C. J. :—These appeals are by certificate from the judgment and decree of the High Court at Patna dated 13 April, 1966 and 3 September, 1968.

2. Four suits were filed by Sugauli Sugar Works Ltd., for recovery of money on account of non-delivery of consignments. Two suits were filed by Majhaulia Sugar Works for recovery of money on account of non-delivery of two consignments. The suits were filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Motihari in Bihar.

3. The plaintiffs are respondents. The case of the respondents was that goods were booked on 5 September, 1955 to several destinations under railway risk. The goods did not reach the destinations. The respondents alleged that non-delivery was on account of gross negligence and misconduct on the part of the Railways.

4. The defence was that the wagons containing the goods in suit along with other wagons were taken on Barge No. 6 from Samaria Ghat to Mokamah Ghat on 7 September, 1955. There was an accident. The Barge with all the wagons sank in the river Ganges. The Railways contended that the employees were not guilty of any negligence or misconduct.

5. The Subordinate Judge dismissed all the suits and held that the accident was not because of the negligence of the railway employees.

6. The High Court accepted the appeals filed by the respondent. The High Court held that the consignments were booked at railway risk and there was no explanation given for the sinking of the Barge. The High Court held that the Barge sank because of serious negligence of the railway employees and it was not a case of inevitable accident. The High Court also held that the railway did not take the care which it was required to take as a bailee. The High Court delivered the judgment on 13 April, 1966 and sent to the trial Court for determination of the issue: "What is the amount for which the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree in this case?"

7. One group of appeals is against the judgment of the High Court dated 13 April 1966 which determined the liability.

8. The Additional Subordinate Judge, Motihari who tried the issue on remand by an order dated 10 September, 1966 gave decrees in favour of the respondent. The High Court by judgment dated 3 September 1968 set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court on remand. The High Court awarded decrees in favour of the respondents.

9. The second group of appeals is by certificate against the judgment of the High Court dated 3 September, 1968.

10. One of the contentions raised before the High Court and repeated here is that the High Court should not have relied on an enquiry 1416 report into the accident. The High Court held that there was an enquiry under R. 18 of the Rules made by the Railway Board. The High Court referred to Sections 83 and 84 of the Railways Act. Section 83 provides that if there is any accident attended with loss of human life or grievous hurt or with serious injury to property, notice shall be given to various persons. Section 84 confers power on the Central Government to make Rules for several purposes including the purpose of prescribing the duties of railway servants. police officers, inspectors and Magistrates on the occurrence of an accident. Section 2 of the Indian Railway Board Act authorises the Central Government to invest the Railway Board with all or any of the powers or functions of the Central Government under the Railways Act. The Central Government authorised the Railway Board to make rules in pursuance of Section 84 of the Railways Act. Rule 18 of the Railway Board Rules provides that whenever an accident has occurred in the course of working a Railway, the Agent or Manager shall cause an enquiry to be promptly made by a committee of railway officers (to be called a joint enquiry) for the thorough investigation of the case which led to the accident. It is also provided in the rule that an enquiry may be dispensed with in certain cases.

11. In the present case the enquiry was held by three officers. The enquiry re