JUDGMENT :- This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for the recovery of Rs. 670/12/6 claimed as price of 90 bags of cement plus Rs. 42/12/3 claimed as interest. On 8-5-1954 two consignments of cement bags of 585 bags and 530 bags respectively were booked from Taliayathu, Madras, Railway Station on the Southern Railway for being delivered to the consignee at Gonda which is a railway station on the N. E. Railway. These two consignments were delivered to the consignee, viz., the plaintiff-appellant in three instalments : The first instalment of 495 bags was delivered on 19-6-1954, the second of 285 bags on 22-6-1954 and the third of 245 bags on 2-8-1954. Thus the delivery was short by 90 bags. It is in these circumstances that after serving notices as required by section 77 of the Indian Railways Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure the plaintiff-appellant filed this suit against the Union of India through the general Manager, N. E. Railway,

Gorakhpur, for the amount mentioned above.

2. The main plea on which the claim was contested was that in view of the provisions of section 80 of the Railways Act no liability for short delivery could be fastened on the N. E. Railway since it received only 1025 bags and delivered the same number of bags to the consignee. Both the courts have recorded a finding on the basis of the very evidence led by the plaintiff-appellant that N. E. Railway received only 1025 bags. On that finding they came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-appellant had failed to prove that the loss occurred on the N. E. Railway Administration and hence having regard to the provisions of section 80 of the Railways Act no decree could be passed in favour of the appellant in the suit which is directed against the Union of India through the General Manager, N. E. Railway only. In that view of the matter the trial court dismissed the suit and the first appellate court has upheld that decree. It is in these circumstances that the plainiff has come up in second appeal.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length. His first contention is that in order to escape its liability it was incumbent on the N. E. Railway Administration to prove that it dealt with the consignment with the same care and attention which is required of a bailee and since it failed to lead any such evidence the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to succeed. I am unable to appreciate the argument. Once it is conceded by the plaintiff-appellant himself through his own evidence that the N. E. Railway received only 1025 bags and further that it delivered the same number of bags to the plaintiff-appellant there is obviously an end of the matter. Where a bailee delivers the entire goods bailed how can there arise any question as to whether the bailee dealt with the goods bailed with the required care and attention or otherwise. The very fact that he delivered the entire goods bailed is proof positive of the fact that he bestowed the care he was required under the law. I accordingly repeal the contention.

4. The other contention is that in so far as the Union of India is the owner of both the railway administrations, i.e. the administration which received the goods at the time of consignment and the administration which received the goods before delivery to the consignee the plaintiff-appellant on proving short delivery is entitled to recover the price to the extent the delivery is short as against the Union of India, the owner of both the railway administrations, notwithstanding the fact that the plaint describes the defendant as Union of India through only one of the two railway administrations. This argument runs counter to the provisions of S. 80 of the Indian Railways Act which clearly provides that in case of loss the railway administration which receives the goods at the time of consignment is liable to compensate the consignee regardless of the fact whether the loss occurred when the goods were in transit on that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document