Rilway Administration held liable for the loss of goods.

The facts of this appeal are that the plaintiffs in the Court below were consignees in respect of goods consisting of 213 steel squares and 183 steel flats (of 18 feet length) weighing 20 tons. This consignment was despatched on 13th December 1953, by the Indian Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., Burnpur, West Bengal at railway risk under R.R. No. 46111, through wagon N.W. 50009 K.C. 20 G.V. The record shows that this wagon was part of an Express Goods Train which ran between Burnpur station and Madras Salt Cottaurs. When the first plaintiff obtained delivery at Madras, he found that the contents of the wagon had been disturbed,‘and so asked for open delivery with re-weighment It was then discovered that the goods received at Madras weighed 239 maunds, I seer as against the invoice weight of 547 maunds, 10 seers. Since the Railway Administration (defendant) understood delivery in terms of weight, not description of goods, it is the deficiency in weight that is material. The first plaintiff wrote on 4th January, 1954 to the Chief Commercial Superintendent of the Southern Railway claiming Rs 4,443-7-0, the value of undelivered goods.

The defence to this action by the Railway Administration is that this Express Goods Train was stopped twice by an organised band of thieves, who effected their purpose by disconnecting the vacuum pipe and thus bringing the train to a standstill, between Biccavole and Dwarapudi and again between Dwarapudi and Kadiam. This gang looted the train, and the deficiency in this case entirely arises from this organised and large-scale theft. Ultimately certain articles thrown on the track were recovered, and it is interesting to note that the Railway Administration later offered to return 88 of those articles, alleged to be part of this consignment. But the records prove that those articles were not part of this consignment, and hence the appellants refused to take delivery of them. Another important fact is that, out of a much larger gang, six persons were later apprehended by the Railway Police and successfully prosecuted. The Administration disclaims any complicity of its servants, or any responsibility springing from neglect of its duties as bailee in respect of these goods.

The learned First Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court tried this action on the merits, after framing the relevant issues. He came to the conclusion that the goods were lost by theft, in spite of due care and caution taken by the Railway Administration (issue 4). He dismissed the suit with costs to the defendant-Administration.

The legal principles applicable to this action are not in dispute. They are enunciated in section 72 (1) of the Indian Railways Act, and, broadly stated, the responsibility of the Administration is that of a bailee under sections 151, 152 and 161 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872. Further, sub-clause (3) of section 72 specified that this responsibility is not affected by anything relating to the responsibility of carriers in the common law of England or in the Carriers Act, 1865. It is well known that a special and higher responsibility, not being part of the ordinary law of bailment, was imposed by the law of England on carriers. We are not now concerned with this, nor with the further statutory modifications of that liability. The present liability is primarily that of a bailee, upon the standards specified in section 151 of the Contract Act, following the principles expounded in the leading case of Coggs v. Bernard1. I might here observe that the criterion in section 151 of the care that should be taken by a man of ordinary prudence, under similar circumstances, in respect of his own goods, does not imply any heroic measure of responsibility or conduct. Though some men might defend their goods, even at the risk of injury to person or loss of life, that is not the standard to be imposed in respect of a bailee. This is of some relevance in the present case, when we come to the facts regarding the actual ra