1965 (2) TMI 131 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court overturns decision, railway not liable for non-delivery.

Union Of India Versus Mahadeolal Prabhudayal

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's decision. The suit was not barred by Section ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the suit was barred by Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act due to lack of notice.2. Whether the railway was absolved from responsibility under Risk Note Form Z.3. Whether there was misconduct by the railway or its servants leading to the non-delivery of goods.Detailed Analysis:1. Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act:The primary issue was whether the suit was barred by Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act, which requires a notice to be given within six months from the date of delivery of the goods for carriage. The trial court, based on certain Patna High Court decisions, held that no notice was necessary in cases of non-delivery, distinguishing it from loss. However, this view was overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Governor-General in Council v. Musaddilal, which held that non-delivery is a consequence of loss and thus requires notice under Section 77. Despite the respondent's initial claim that no notice was necessary, it was found that a notice dated April 10, 1948, was indeed given, fulfilling the requirements of Section 77. Consequently, the suit was not barred.2. Risk Note Form Z:The second issue concerned the applicability of Risk Note Form Z, which absolves the railway from responsibility for loss, destruction, or deterioration of goods except upon proof of misconduct by the railway or its servants. The High Court held that the railway failed to discharge its burden of disclosure as required under the risk note, thus breaching the contract and making the railway liable as a simple bailee under Section 72(1) of the Act. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the obligation to disclose arises only when specifically requested by the consignor before litigation. Since no such request was made before the suit, there was no breach. The court emphasized that even if there was a breach of disclosure, the risk note would still apply, and the responsibility would not revert to that of a simple bailee. The court would instead more readily infer misconduct or apply Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act against the railway.3. Misconduct by the Railway or its Servants:The final issue was whether misconduct by the railway or its servants could be inferred from the evidence. The trial court accepted the evidence of the guard who testified that the wagon was intact when it left Mughalsarai, suggesting that the theft occurred between Mughalsarai and Buxar. The High Court, however, doubted this evidence. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the evidence, found no reason to disbelieve the guard's testimony. The evidence indicated that the wagon was intact when it left Mughalsarai and that the theft likely occurred in the running train. The court noted that the respondent did not request further disclosure or production of additional evidence, such as the seal book or testimony from the watch and ward staff, which could have supported their claim. Therefore, the court concluded that misconduct could not be fairly inferred from the railway's evidence, and the burden of proving misconduct, which was on the respondent, was not discharged.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's decision. The suit was not barred by Section 77 due to the notice given. The railway was not in breach of its disclosure obligation under Risk Note Form Z, and misconduct by the railway or its servants could not be fairly inferred from the evidence. Consequently, the railway was not liable for the non-delivery of the goods.