SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1968 Supreme(Online)(AP) 6

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
J. R. Rao, J
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan Supplying Agencies – Respondent
S.C. No. 1236 of 1962 | S.C. No. 1413 of 1962



Advocates:
For the Appellants: Shri K. Krishnamurthy
For the Respondents: Shri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam

Negligence in loading flammable goods during transport makes the railway administration liable for losses incurred due to fire, altering burden of proof onto the plaintiff.

Headnote:(A) Indian Railways Act, 1890 - Sections 73, 74, and 76-F - Liability of Railway administration for loss or damage - Consignments caught fire during transit due to NEGLIGENCE in loading inflammable goods - Burden of proof is on consignor to prove negligence of railway - Amendment to the Act considered. (Paras 11, 12, 14, 16, 21)

(B) The court established that railway administration is liable for loss or damage unless it proves compliance with necessary care standards when loading goods. Failure to adequately disclose handling details can imply negligence. (Paras 11, 21)

Facts of the case:
The consignees sued the railway for non-delivery of valuable goods due to fire during transit. The railway claimed it was not liable under the law referred to, which exempted them under certain conditions.

Findings of Court:
The railway administration failed to show proper care in loading practices and was not exempt from liability. Plaintiffs were entitled to relief based on sufficient evidence of negligence.

Issues: Main issues include proving negligence on the part of the railway and whether the risk note was applicable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that negligence in loading flammable materials establishes liability for loss and non-delivery. The plaintiff must prove negligence if the risk note applies.

Result: Revision petitions are dismissed with costs in each case.

Table of Content
1. details of cases concerning non-delivery of consignments. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 7)
2. incidents leading to fire and evidence from witnesses. (Para 5 , 6 , 10 , 20)
3. legal considerations under the amended railway act. (Para 8 , 12 , 13 , 16)
4. findings on negligence in handling consignments. (Para 9 , 11 , 14)
5. judicial reasoning on railway's responsibility. (Para 19 , 21 , 22)

1. Rajasthan Supplying Agencies, represented by its proprietors, Madanlal Sodhani, as sole plaintiff, filed S.C. No. 1236 of 1962 in the Court of the learned District Munsif at Vijayawada for Rs. 156.54 nP. against the Union of India as representing two Railways, regarding non - delivery of certain consignment. Sri Venkata Kanakadurga Fancy and Kangan Hall, represented by proprietor, Jampani Hasavaraju. as sole plaintiff, filed S.C. No. 1413 of 1962 for Rs. 265 in the same Court against the same two respondent - Railways for non - delivery of consignment.

2. S.C. No. 1236 of 1962 related to two cases of metal soap cases, etc., consigned from Calcutta to Vijayawada as per the P.W.B. No. 569406 dated 12-2-1962. The suit was laid since the consignment was not delivered to the plaintiff.

3. S.C. No. 1413 of 1962 related to non - receipt of consignment booked at Calcutta by a consignor as per P.W.B. No. 569401 dated 12-2-1962 bound for Vijayawada.

4. In each of the two suits, the defendants contested. As common questions were involved, the two suits were tried together by common consent. Ultimately, the second Additional District Munsiff passed common judgment dated 26-11-1963 decreeing each or the suits as prayed for. The two respondents filed C.R.P. No. 1086 of 1964 against the judgment in S.C. No. 1236 of 1962 and C.R.P. No. 1087 of 1964 against the judgment, so far as it relates to S.C. No. 1413 of 1962.

5. Both the revision petitions being against a common judgment, passed in a common trial, were heard together by common consent.

6. The relevant facts, as appearing from the evidence, are as follows : The two consignments were two of the 250 consignments which were put in C. R. 56432. The van was sent as a sealed van by the Railway authorities to Bezwada. Ex. B - 1 is the loading summary signed by D.W. 1, the Parcel Clerk. Ex. B - 2 and Ex. B - 3 are entries in Ex. B - l. Ex. B - 4 and Ex. B - 5 are two forwarding notes corresponding to Ex. B - 2 and Ex. B - 3. On 17-2-1962, the sealed van arrived at Anaparthy. It was about 10 p.m. in the night. The crew of the train broke off duty. The train was stabled at Anaparthy. Two Railway Protection Sainiks guarded the train and left in the morning. D.W. 2, the Assistant Station Master at Anaparthy on night duty, was in charge of that train. At 6-20 a.m. on 18-2-1962. he noticed smoke coming out of the Wagon No. CR 56432. But, all the same, he found that the wagon was intact and the seals were unbroken. He reported to the Station Master (D.W. 3). The latter opened the wagon, found it to be full of smoke, unloaded 36 articles and secured the way - bills and loading summary which were inside the wagon. They tried to put out the fire but could not succeed. D.W. 3 took it to a siding of the I.L.T.D. Company and, using sand and plenty of water, put out the fire. On a message being sent, D.W. 5, the Fire Officer, Rajahmundry Fire Station, rushed to Anaparthy station and reached at 8-40 A. M. By that time, the fire was being tackled by the I.L.T.D. staff and quenched. The Station Master (D.W, 3) found that, except 36 articles, all the other contents of the wagon which included the consignment concerned in the two suits, had been burnt or half - burnt. D.W. 3 sent the salvage to Bezwada and an Inspector took charge of the wagon with the burnt things. D.W. 5 noted in the van one tin containing inflammable liquid which was burnt in the fire itself and the Station Master (D.W. 3) took charge of it. In the opinion of D.W. 5, the fire accident might be due to chemical action due to combustion. D.W. 7, the Regional In
















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top