A railway administration is liable for the loss of goods entrusted to it for carriage, even if the loss is caused by the negligence of a third party, such as the production of a forged railway receipt.

( 1 ) THIS is a suit by a consignee of goods for damages for non-delivery and/ or loss of the consignment against the Union of India.

( 2 ) ON 29-4-1950 the plaintiff consigned to himself 201 bags of mustard seeds from Hathras Killah on the East Indian Railway. The goods were to be carried to Luckysarai. another station or the same Railway. For the non-delivery of the consignment the plaintiff claims a sum of Rs. 18. 022-8-0, full particulars of the claim being given in paragraph 3 of the plaint. These include not only the cost of 455 mds. 5 srs. 8 ch. mustard seeds amounting to Rs. 15,614-7-3 'but various other charges and expenses. As the plaintiff is not pressing his claim with regard to these other items, no further notice need be taken of them.

( 3 ) THE Plea in defence which was ultimately pressed in this Court, is that the consignment arrived at the destination station and delivery of it was duly given to the consignee or his agent ; an alternative case was also made that if the plaintiff had not received delivery of the consignment covered by the railway receipt, the defendant should be absolved from all liability in respect of the loss or non-delivery to the plaintiff inasmuch as it took as much care of the goods as a person of ordinary prudence would take of his own goods in similar circumstances. The defendant also denies any negligence on its part.

( 4 ) THE issues settled are as follows: 1. What was the value of the goods consigned by the plaintiff ? 2. Was the delivery of the said goods given to the plaintiff or his agent? 3. Was the loss or non-delivery, if any, occasioned by the negligence of the defendant ? 4. Did the defendant take as much care of the said goods as a person of ordinary prudence would take of his own goods in the circumstances? If so is the defendant liable ? 5. To what relief, if any; is the plaintiff entitled ?

( 5 ) THE plaintiff examined one Udayachand who said that he himself was responsible for booking the goods at Hathras Killah and taking the railwav receint from the authorities at that station. He produced the original railway receipt. According to him this document had been sent to the Central Bank of India for realisation of the money covered by a hundi in respect of the va1ue of the goods which was a little over Rs. 15,000. The hundi was not cleared and the railway receipt was returned to the plaintiff. He went on to say that he had gone to Luckysarai and from enquiries made at the railway station learnt from the officials there that the goods had already been unleaded and delivered to Gourisankar Mills on production of a railway receipt endorsed in their favour. He stated that he had informed the Railway authorities that he himself was in possession of the genuine railway receipt, and that thereafter the police had taken action in the matter, seized the goods from Gourisankar Mills and sold the same by auction for a sum of Rs. 14,000 or so. The cress-examination of this witness was directed to showing that when the plaintiff had come to know that the goods had been delivered to Gourisankar Mills, who had" no right or title to receive the goods, no steps had been taken by the plaintiff against them. The witness said, that the railway receipt which Gourisankar Mills had produced at the time of taking delivery had been shown to him but this fact was disputed by the goods clerk one Md. Kamruddin, a witness examined by the defendant. Udaychand said further that the plaintiff never had any transaction with Gourisankar Mills and that ha had no idea as to how the railway recent produced by Gourisankar Mills had come into existence. Clearly cross-examining, counsel suggested that the railway receipt produced by Gourisankar Mills was a forged document inasmuch as the genuineness of the document produced by the plaintiff was never questioned. The memorandum of the Central Bank of India showing that the hundi had not been honoured was brought out during the cross-examinat