The main legal principle established is that the Railway Administration, as a bailee, must take reasonable care of goods entrusted to them, and the burden of proof to disprove negligence lies on the bailee. The exemption from liability does not apply to total non-delivery of goods.

Ramaswami, J.

1. This is an appeal by the defendant from a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Monghyr. The plaintiff brought the suit on the allegation that the defendant Railway Administration had on account of their negligence failed to deliver three consignments of certain goods which had been booked for being delivered to the plaintiff at Lakhisarai. Shree Krishna Company had booked one consignment of goods at Bhagalpur on 11-8-1942. A second consignment was booked by Ramdeo Gajanand at Barhee on 13-8-1942; a third consignment by Durga Prasad Nandlal at Sultanganj on 11-8-1942. The plaintiff claimed as damages a sum of Rs. 5233-2-9 and odd together with interest. The main ground of defence was that the consignment booked at Bhagalpur and Sultanganj were duly conveyed to Lakhisarai where they were looted by a violent mob on 13-8-1942. It was stated that the third consignment was looted by a violent mob on 14-8-1942 at Barhee station. The Railway Administration pleaded that there was no negligence on their part ; that the loss of the consignments was due to circumstances beyond their control. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the Bhagalpur and Sultanganj consignments were looted by a violent mob at Lakhisarai as alleged by the defendant. But he held that the Railway Administration was negligent and the loss would not have taken place if the railway servants had taken proper care. As regards the third consignment the learned Subordinate Judge found that there was no reliable evidence that Barhee railway station was subjected to mob violence on 14-8-1942 or that the consignment was looted. He accordingly granted a decree to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 5233-2-9 but disallowed interest.

2. Three main questions were argued in this appeal : (1) whether the learned Subordinate Judge was right to hold that the Sultanganj and Bhagalpur consignments were looted at Lakhisarai owing to the negligence of the Railway Administration; (2) whether there was proof that the Barhee consignment was lost on account of mob violence at Barhee ; and (3) whether the entire claim of the plaintiff was not barred under Article 31, Limitation Act.

3. On behalf of the respondent learned advocate addressed the argument that the Bhagalpur and Sultanganj consignments never reached Lakhisarai, that they were not looted from the Lakhisarai goods shed on the alleged date. But this argument is untenable in face of the admission of the plaintiffs witnesses that the consignments were actually looted from the goods shed at Lakhisarai. The Subordinate Judge has found also upon the evidence that the Bhagalpur and Sultanganj consignments duly reached Lakhisarai on 13-8-42 during the night, that the consignments were unloaded and kept in the Lakhisarai goods shed on the next date. (After discussion of the evidence the judgment proceeds:)

4. On behalf of the respondent it was argued that there was no proof that the particular consignments were looted from the goods shed at Lakhisarai on the alleged date. It was maintained that the railway officers ought to have prepared a list of the consignments which were looted. But D. W. 11 stated when cross-examined, that no list was prepared as nothing was left after the loot. Learned advocate referred to Governor-General in Council V/s. Kabirram, 27 Pat. 151: (A. I. R. (35) 1948 Pat. 345) in which we had held that the onus was really on the company to prove that the particular goods were looted. But that case must be distinguished from the facts proved in the present case. In that case part of the contents of the wagon were looted by the mob and part remained of which a list had been prepared by Mr. Banerji. This list was disbelieved as Mr. Banerji had not been examined. In the present case, however, it was proved that the entire contents of the wagon had been looted and according to the evidence of D. W. 11 no list was prepared as nothing was left after the loot. On the contrary the defence evidence cou