The companysignment had been booked under risk numbere form Z which for all practical purposes is in the same terms as risk numbere form B. The respondent claimed damages for number delivery on the ground that the number delivery was due to the misconduct of the servants of the railway, and the claim was for a sum of Rs.
It was first companytended that the suit was barred by s. 77 of the Indian Railways Act, No.
Thereupon the railway delivered 29 bales only to the respondent and the remaining 31 bales were said to be missing and were never delivered.
As the loss was number due to any misconduct on the part of the railway or its servants and as the respondent had number discharged the burden which lay on him after the railway had given evidence of how the companysignment had been dealt with, there was numberliability on the railway.
and that the burden of proving such misconduct subject to certain exceptions was on the respondent and that the respondent had failed to discharge that burden.
Then followed an appeal by the respondent to the High Court.
36,461/12/ .
The respondent sued the Union of India as representing G.I.P. Railway, Bombay and E.I.R. Calcutta for recovery of damages for number delivery of 31 bales of piece goods, out of 60 bales which had been companysigned to Baidyanathdham from Wadibundar.
Niren De, Additional Solicitor General, N.D. Karkhanis and B.R.G.K. Achar, for the appellant.
536 of 1962.
In the present appeal we are only companycerned with two defences.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 26.
Secondly it was companytended that the companysignment was sent under risk numbere form Z and under the terms of that risk numbere the railway was absolved from all responsibility for loss, destruction or deterioration of goods companysigned thereunder from any cause whatsoever except upon proof of misconduct of the railway of its servants.
340 of .1951.
1958, of the High Court at Patna in First Appeal No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The respondent who was the companysignee presented the railway receipt on the same day for delivery of the companysignment.
Consequently on August 31.
The suit was resisted by the appellant and a number of defences were taken.
Further in companypliance with the terms of the risk numbere, the railway made a disclosure in the written statement as to how the companysignment was dealt with throughout the period it was in its possession or companytrol.
IX of 1890, hereinafter referred to as the Act , inasmuch as numberice required therein was number given by the respondent.
Bishan Narain, P. D. Himmatsinghka s. Murthy and B.P. Maheshwari, for the respondent.
After reaching Mughalsarai, the wagon was kept in the marshaling yard till December 12, 1947.
This companysignment was loaded in wagon No.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, J. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Patna High Court.
It wag sent to Baidyanadham by 214 On goods train from Mughalsarai at 6 40 p.m. on December 12, 1947 and eventually reached Baidyanathdham on December 21, 1947.
The case of the railway in this companynection was that there was a theft in the running train between Mughalsarai and Buxar on December 12, 1947 and that was how part of the company signment was lost.
9643 on December 1.
1948, numberice was gyen under s. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and this was followed by the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen on November 20, 1948.
