The booking of luggage on the strength of an improper ticket does not make the contract void. The railway administration, having received the luggage charges and the luggages and having booked them against a proper receipt, becomes a bailee in respect thereof and is responsible for the loss thereof under Section 74 of the Indian Railways Act.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff, who is the respondent, claims to be a business man in stationery and toilet goods. He came to court with the case that, on June 9, 1951, he purchased a Railway Ticket from Bombay (Victoria Terminus) to Howrah and booked his luggages, consisting of nine cases of toilet goods. He paid the proper freight for the luggages and obtained luggage. Ticket No. 4919/9, dated June 9, 1951. According to the plaintiff the luggages were to be carried by 1 down train, leaving Bombay on June 9, 1951. Plaintiff alleged that the Railway Administration failed to deliver the luggages at Howrah Station and thus failed to perform its contractual obligation. The plaintiff claimed that he suffered a loss of Rs. 16,767-8-0 as detailed below:

.

Rs .

9 cases toilet goods etc. weighing   20 maunds 24 seers valued at 15,000-0-0 Freight etc. 267-8-0 Loss of Profit at 10% 1,500-0-0 Total claim 16,767-8-0

( 2 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances the plaintiff instituted the suit, out of which this appeal arises, claiming recovery of Rs. 16,767-8-0.

( 3 ) THE suit was contested by the Railway Administration. Paragraphs 7, 8 and 12 of the written statement, which are material for the purposes of this appeal, are set out below;"7. In regard to paras 3 and 4 of the plaint, the defendant states that a half-ticket was purchased purporting to be for a minor and that merchandise Of great value was booked under the guise of luggage to avoid declaration, under the Railways Act which the minor was not entitled to do and was in direct contravention of the Rules in force on the Railways and that if there was any contract, it was void as having been made by a minor; that the Railway Administrations are not liable to pay the compensation as claimed. That the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the ownership of the suit goods. 8. As regards para 5 of the plaint, the defendant does not admit the pecuniary loss which is false and highly inflated and puts the plaintiff to the strict proof of the value of the suit goods, The plaintiff is not entitled to refund of freight and that loss of profit at any percent is not maintainable in law being remote. The allegations of negligence, conversion, etc. are specitically denied. 12. That the defendant submits that the whole affair in connection with the luggage ticket is tainted with fraud and appears to be a big conspiracy to defraud the Railways, and that as the enquiry into this highly complicated case Of fraud has not yet been completed; the defendant craves leave of the Court to file an additional written statement as soon as the details we fully elicited and the whole affair is properly end correctly reconstructed, and that the defendant has every reason to believe that a sifting enquiry by a proper machinery for investigation Is bound to reveal a most daring and ingenious case of fraud. In the circumstances, the defendant denies any liability for compensation. "

( 4 ) THERE is no dispute, in the present appeal, that the plaintiff is not a child, below 12 years of age, who alone is entitled to travel on a half ticket. There is also no dispute that the ticket against which the luggages were booked, namely, ticket No. 8859 was a half ticket or a child's ticket in the third class. Also there is no dispute that luggages, numbering nine cases, were book-ed with the Guard of the 1 down train, leaving Bombay on June 9, 1951. Lastly, there is no dispute that the aforementioned luggages were not delivered to the plaintiff after the train reached Howrah Station The trial Court decreed the claim on the following line of reasoning:" (a) The main defence of the Railway rests upon a technical plea that the plaintiff having booked the luggage in question on the basis of a half passenger's ticket, which is ordinarily issued to a minor below 12 years of age under the Railway Rules, plaintiff is a minor, and as the suit was filed by plaintiff as major the plaintiff has hot been properly represented and