http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: GOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MUSADDI LAL.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/01/1961

BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. KAPUR, J.L.

CITATION:  1961 AIR  725            1961 SCR  (3) 647  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1962 SC1879  (7)  R          1965 SC1755  (5)  R          1969 SC  23  (9)  E&D        1974 SC 923  (51)

ACT: Railway---Non-delivery  of goods--Suit for compensation  for non-delivery,  if  distinct  from  compensation  for   loss, destruction’   or   deterioration--Notice   of   claim   for compensation,  if condition precedent--Limitation from  when to  run--Indian Railways Act, 189o (IX of 1890), ss. 72  and 77--Indian Limitation Act, 1908, Arts. 30, 31.

HEADNOTE: The  respondent  served  on  the  Railway  Administration  a composite notice under s- 77 of the Indian Railways Act  and under  s.  So of the Code of Civil Procedure  and  sued  for price of goods and for loss on account of nondelivery.   The claim  was resisted by the Railway Administration  on  pleas amongst others that the suit was not maintainable without an effective notice under S. 77 of the Railway Act and that the suit  was barred because at the date of the suit the  period of limitation prescribed by Art. 31 of the Indian Limitation Act had expired. A  full bench of the Allahabad High Court upheld the  decree of the trial court in favour of the respondent holding  that a  claim  for compensation for non-delivery of goods  was  a claim  distinct  from the claim for compensation  for  loss, destruction  or  deterioration  of the  goods,  and  to  the enforcement of a claim of the former variety by action in  a court of law under S. 77 was not a condition precedent. Held,  that  s.  77 of the Indian  Railways  Act  imposes  a restriction  on the enforcement of liability declared by  S. 72  of the Act and prescribes a condition precedent  to  the maintainability of a claim for compensation for goods  lost, destroyed  or  deteriorated  while in  the  custody  of  the railway  Administration who are bailers and not  insurer  of goods.   The  section is enacted with a view to  enable  the railway administration to make enquiries and if possible  to recover  the goods and deliver them to the consignee and  to prevent stale claims.  Failure to deliver goods is the  con- sequence of loss or destruction and the cause of action  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

it  is  not distinct from the cause of action  for  loss  or destruction, 83 648 Held,  further, that merely because Arts. 30 and 3r  of  the Indian  Limitation  Act prescribe different points  of  time from  which  the  limitation is to  run  for  suits  against carriers  it  cannot be inferred that the claim  covered  by either article is not for compensation for loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods; and the said Arts. 30 and  31 cannot  be  projected  upon  ss. 72 and  77  of  the  Indian Railways Act for holding that suit for compensation for non- delivery of goods does not fall within s. 77. The  Madras  and  Southern  Mahratta  Railway  Co.  Ltd.  v. Haridoss  Banmalidoss,  (1918)  I.L.R.  41  Mad.  871,  Hill Sawyers and Co. v. Secretary of State,, (1921) I.L.R. 2 Lah. 133, Martab Ali v. Union of India, [1954] 56 Bom.  L.R. 150, Union  of India v. Mitayagiri Pullappa, I.L.R.  [1958]  A.P. 323, Assam Bengal Railway Co. Ltd. v. Radhika Mohan Nath and Others, A.I.R. (1923) Cal. 397 and Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd. v. Hamir Mull Chhagan Mull and Another (1926) I.L.R.  5 Pat.  106, approved. Governor-General in Council and  Others v. Mahabir Ram and Another, (1953) I.L.R. I All. 64 and Jais Ram Ramrekha Das V. G.I.P. Railway and Another (1929) I.L.R. 8 Pat. 545, overruled.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal  No.  313/1956. Appeal  from the judgment and decree dated July 25,1952,  of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 2547 of 1946. B.   Ganapathy Iyer and T. M. Sen for the appellant K.   P. Gupta, for the respondent. 1961.  January 31.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered by SHAH, J.-On January 30, 1943, Bhola Nath Sambhu Ram as agent of the respondent L. Musaddilal delivered a bale of cloth to the  railway  administration  E. 1.  Rly.  at  Agra  railway station for carriage by railway to the Chola Station in  the E.  I.  Rly.  The consignment was accepted  by  the  railway administration and a railway receipt was issued in the  name of  the consignor Bhola Nath Sambhu Ram.  Bhola Nath  Sambhu Ram endorsed the railway receipt in favour of the respondent and  sent it by post to the respondent.  The bale  of  cloth did  not  reach Chola, and the  railway  administration  was unable   despite   efforts   to   trace   it.    There   was correspondence  between the railway administration  and  the respondent   about  the  consignment.   Failing  to   obtain satisfaction 649 for  the  loss  suffered by him,  the  respondent  served  a composite notice under s. 77 of the Indian Railways Act  and s.  80 of the Civil Procedure Code on December 7, 1943,  and thereafter  on May 18, 1944, filed suit No. 283 of  1944  in the  court of the 11 Munsif, Bulandshahr, for a  decree  for Rs.  782-3-6 being the " price of the bale " and Rs.  200  " for   loss   on  account  of   nondelivery."   The   railway administration resisted the claim on the pleas among  others that  the  suit was not maintainable  without  an  effective notice under a. 77 of the Railways Act and that the suit was barred  because at the date of the institution of the  suit, the  period  of  limitation prescribed by  Art.  31  of  the Limitation  Act  had expired.  The trial court  decreed  the suit.   In appeal, the Additional Civil Judge,  Bulandshahr,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

reversed, the decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the  suit.   A  Full Bench of the High  Court  of  Allahabad reversed the decree passed by the first appellate court  and restored the decree of the trial court.  With certificate of fitness  under  Art.  133(1)(c) of  the  Constitution,  this appeal has been preferred by the Union of India. Section  77 of the Railways Act in so far as it is  material provides:               "A   person   shall   not   be   entitled   to               compensation  for  the  loss,  destruction  or               deterioration   of  goods  delivered   to   be               carried, unless his claim to compensation  has               been  preferred  in writing by him or  on  his               behalf  to the railway  administration  within               six  months from the date of the  delivery  of               the goods for carriage by railway." Section  77 manifestly prescribes a condition  precedent  to the  maintainability of a claim for compensation  for  goods lost, destroyed or deteriorated while in the custody of  the railway  administration.   The  notice  prescribed  was  not served  by  the respondent upon the  railway  administration within  six  months from the date on which  the  goods  were delivered  for carriage, and prima facie the suit  would  be barred   for   non-compliance  of  a   statutory   condition precedent.   But  the respondent pleaded and  the  plea  has found favour with the High Court that the suit filed by him 650 was  for  compensation  not for  loss,  destruction  or   it deterioration  of the goods, but " for non-delivery  of  the goods."  In  the  view  of  the  High  Court,  a  claim  for compensation  for non-delivery of goods is a claim  distinct from  a  claim  for compensation for  loss,  destruction  or deterioration of goods and to the enforcement of a claim  of the former variety by action in a court of law s. 77 is  not a condition precedent. The  railway  administration in India is not an  insurer  of goods:  it is merely a bailee of goods entrusted to  it  for carriage.   Section 72 of the Railways Act,  prescribes  the measure   of  the  general  responsibility  of   a   railway administration as a carrier of goods.  By that section,  the responsibility   of  a  railway  administration  for   loss, destruction  or  deterioration  of  goods  delivered  to  be carried by railway is subject to other provisions of the Act to be that of a bailee under s. 152 and s. 161 of the Indian Contract  Act,  1872.  Sections 151 and 152  of  the  Indian Contract Act deal with the duties of a bailee.  If a  bailee takes as much care of the goods bailed to him as a person of ordinary  prudence would under similar circumstances of  his own  goods of the same bulk, quality and value as the  goods bailed  to him, in the absence of a special contract, he  is not  responsible for loss, destruction or  deterioration  of the goods bailed.  By ss. 160 and 161 of the Indian Contract Act, the bailee is under an obligation to return or  deliver according to the bailor’s direction the goods bailed as soon as  the time for which the good were bailed has  expired  or the  purpose  for  which  the goods  were  bailed  has  been accomplished and if on account of default of the bailee  the goods are not returned, delivered or tendered at the  proper time,  he  is  responsible  to  the  bailor  for  any  loss, destruction  or  deterioration  of the  goods,  The  railway administration  being  a bailee of the goods  delivered  for carriage to it is therefore a bailee during the period  when the  goods remain in its custody for the purpose and in  the course of carriage and for the purpose of delivery after the goods are carried to the destination.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

651 But the quantum of care which the railway administration  is required  to  take is that care which it would  take  having regard  to  the bulk, quality and value of its  own  similar goods. Section  77  of the Railways Act is enacted with a  view  to enable  the railway administration to make enquiries and  if possible  to  recover the goods and to deliver them  to  the consignee  and  to  prevent  stale  claims.   It  imposes  a restriction  on the enforcement of liability declared by  s. 72.    The  liability  declared  by  a.  72  is  for   loss, destruction  or  deterioration.  Failure to deliver  is  the consequence  of  loss or destruction of goods; it  does  not furnish  a cause of action on which a suit may, lie  against the railway administration, distinct from a cause of  action for  loss  or destruction.  By the use  of  the  expression, "loss,  destruction or deterioration," what is  contemplated is loss or destruction or deterioration of the goods and the consequent  loss  to  the  owner  tbereof.   If  because  of negligence or inadvertence or even wrongful act on the  part of  the  employees  of  the  railway  administration,  goods entrusted for carriage are lost, destroyed or  deteriorated, the railway administration is guilty of failing to take  the degree of care which is prescribed by s. 72 of the  Railways Act. There are undoubtedly two distinct articles, Arts. 30 and 31 in  the first schedule of the Indian Limitation Act  dealing with limitation for suits for compensation against carriers. Article  30  prescribes the period of limitation  for  suits against a carrier for compensation against loss or injury to goods  and Art. 31 prescribes the period of  limitation  for suits for compensation against a carrier for non-delivery or delay  in  delivering the goods.  The period  of  limitation under  each of these articles is one year but the points  of time from which that period is to be reckoned are different. But  because  the Indian Limitation Act  provides  different points  of  time from which the period of limitation  is  to run,  it is not possible to infer that the claim covered  by either article is not for compensation for loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods.  We are unable to project the provisions of Art, 30 and 31 652 of the Limitation Act upon ss. 72 and 77 of the Railways Act and to hold that a suit for compensation for loss because of non-delivery of goods does not fall within s. 77.  The  view we  have  expressed  is  supported  by  a  large  volume  of authority in the courts in India for instance The Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Co., Ltd. v. Haridoss  Banmalidoss (1), Hill Sawyers and Co. v. Secretary of State (2),  Martab Ali  v.  Union of India (s), Union of  India  v.  Mitayagiri Pullappa  (4),  Assam Bengal Railway Co.,  Ltd.  v.  Radhika Mohan  Nath (5) and Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd. v.  Hamir Mull Chhagan Mull (6). The  view  expressed to the contrary in the  Allahabad  High Court in Governor-General in Council v. Mahabir Ram (7)  and ;by  the Patna High Court in Jais Ram Ramrekha Das v. G.  1. P. Railway (8), is in our judgment erroneous. This  appeal will therefore be allowed and the  respondent’s suit  will  stand  dismissed.  As the  Union  of  India  was permitted to appeal for obtaining the decision of this Court which  may  settle  the conflict of views  even  though  the amount  involved  is  small, we think that it  is  just  and proper that there should be no order as to costs throughout. Appeal allowed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5