# SUPREME OOUR'1' REPORTS [1963] UNION OF INDIA v. M/s. UDHO RAM & SONS - **Citation:** [1963] 2 S.C.R. 702 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1963 - **Case number:** Civil Regular First Appea.l No. 32-D of 1953 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/supreme-oour-1-reports-1963-union-of-india-v-m-s-udho-ram-sons-2536 - **Pages:** 6 ## Headnote lllf2 M~ I. 702 SUPREME OOUR'1' REPORTS [1963] UNION OF INDIA v. M/s. UDHO RAM & SONS (J. L. KAPun, K. C. DAs GUPTA e.nd' HAOHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.\ Railway-Losa of good,, in tranait-Negligence of railway .. f11(Jn18-Liability-Indian RailwalfS Act 1890 (IX of 1890) •. 12-Indian Contract Act, 1872 (IX of 1872), •. 151. ' Certain goods consigned by a merchant to the respon. dent. Some of the-goods were lost in transit. The rcspon • dent sued the railway authorities for dcmages for tl1e lo~s on ground that the· 1oss was incurred due to the negli· gence of the railway authorities. The defence raised was that loss occurred due to factors beyond the control of the railway authorities. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. On appeal the High Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and found that the loss was caused by the negligence and misconduct of the railway authorities in as much as the railway police failed to take precaution to sec that no body interfered with the goods. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court by way of certificate granted by the High Court. Held, that the responsibility of the railway under s. 72 of the Indian Railways Act is subject to th~ provisions ofs. 151 of the Indian Contract Act and the Railway as a bailee was bound to take as much care of the goods bat led to it as a man of ordinary prudence would under similar circumstances. The lo!S having taken place due to the negligence of the railway servants the railway is liable for the loss incurred. by the respondent. Civn. APPELLATE JuRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 581 of 60. Appeal from the judgment e.nd decree date.d April 23. 1958, of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) Delhi in Civil Regular First Appea.l No. 32-D of 1953. -paunit f,al nnd D. Gupt,a, for th<> appi-lle.ut, • ,, ' f , 2 S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT _REPORTS 703 Gurbachan Singh _and Haibana Singh, for the respondent. 1962. May I. The Judgment of -the Court was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-This, appeal, _on certificate granted by the Punjab High Court, ariaes in the following circumstances. _ M/s. Radha Ram Sohan Lal of Calcutta consigned certain goods to self at Delhi. Of the - consignment, certain articles were not delivered· to M/s. Udho Ram & Sons, the plaintiffs, in whose favour the railway receipt had been endorsed by t-he consigner. Having failed to receive the compensation for the loss suffered on account of the articles not delivered, the suit giving rise to - this appeal was instituted, There is now_ no dispute about the amount of loss determined by the Court, as suffered by the plaintiffs. · The only dispute between the parties is whether the los~ of goods in transit between Calcutta and Delhi was due to the mis-conduct and negligence of the railways or not. The Union of India, the defendent, contended that the loss occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the railway administration. The trial Court found that the railway i wagon in which' the consignment _ was loaded had been thereafter properly rivetted and sealed at Howrah, that the ·seals and rivet of one door of the wagon were found open when the train which left Howrah at 1. 30 a. m._ on October 1, 1949, reached Chandanpur Station at 3.15 a. m., the l same night, the train having stopped for 14 minutes at the Howrah-Burdwan Link for the home signal at 2. OS a, m., and · that the railway protection police es_corted the t~ain. The High Gourt accepted these fin'dings and they are not questioned. lift Uniono/Itulia v. M/1, U4M"Ram cll·Sotii Raglubar DaJ•I I. IHI Uroinlqflndia v. II /1. Ullo ~ .. , cir Bou 704 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1963] The trial Court, however, found that the precaution taken of posting railway protection police in a good~ train, in view of the frequent thefts in running trl\iDB between Howrah and Cha.nda.npur, amounted to the railways ta.king proper ca.re of the f.!Oods delivered to them as carriers ~nd that therefore the railways were not guilty of any negligence and mis-conduot. It wa ## Text lllf2 M~ I. 702 SUPREME OOUR'1' REPORTS [1963] UNION OF INDIA v. M/s. UDHO RAM & SONS (J. L. KAPun, K. C. DAs GUPTA e.nd' HAOHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.\ Railway-Losa of good,, in tranait-Negligence of railway .. f11(Jn18-Liability-Indian RailwalfS Act 1890 (IX of 1890) •. 12-Indian Contract Act, 1872 (IX of 1872), •. 151. ' Certain goods consigned by a merchant to the respon. dent. Some of the-goods were lost in transit. The rcspon • dent sued the railway authorities for dcmages for tl1e lo~s on ground that the· 1oss was incurred due to the negli· gence of the railway authorities. The defence raised was that loss occurred due to factors beyond the control of the railway authorities. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. On appeal the High Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and found that the loss was caused by the negligence and misconduct of the railway authorities in as much as the railway police failed to take precaution to sec that no body interfered with the goods. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court by way of certificate granted by the High Court. Held, that the responsibility of the railway under s. 72 of the Indian Railways Act is subject to th~ provisions ofs. 151 of the Indian Contract Act and the Railway as a bailee was bound to take as much care of the goods bat led to it as a man of ordinary prudence would under similar circumstances. The lo!S having taken place due to the negligence of the railway servants the railway is liable for the loss incurred. by the respondent. Civn. APPELLATE JuRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 581 of 60. Appeal from the judgment e.nd decree date.d April 23. 1958, of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) Delhi in Civil Regular First Appea.l No. 32-D of 1953. -paunit f,al nnd D. Gupt,a, for th<> appi-lle.ut, • ,, ' f , 2 S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT _REPORTS 703 Gurbachan Singh _and Haibana Singh, for the respondent. 1962. May I. The Judgment of -the Court was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-This, appeal, _on certificate granted by the Punjab High Court, ariaes in the following circumstances. _ M/s. Radha Ram Sohan Lal of Calcutta consigned certain goods to self at Delhi. Of the - consignment, certain articles were not delivered· to M/s. Udho Ram & Sons, the plaintiffs, in whose favour the railway receipt had been endorsed by t-he consigner. Having failed to receive the compensation for the loss suffered on account of the articles not delivered, the suit giving rise to - this appeal was instituted, There is now_ no dispute about the amount of loss determined by the Court, as suffered by the plaintiffs. · The only dispute between the parties is whether the los~ of goods in transit between Calcutta and Delhi was due to the mis-conduct and negligence of the railways or not. The Union of India, the defendent, contended that the loss occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the railway administration. The trial Court found that the railway i wagon in which' the consignment _ was loaded had been thereafter properly rivetted and sealed at Howrah, that the ·seals and rivet of one door of the wagon were found open when the train which left Howrah at 1. 30 a. m._ on October 1, 1949, reached Chandanpur Station at 3.15 a. m., the l same night, the train having stopped for 14 minutes at the Howrah-Burdwan Link for the home signal at 2. OS a, m., and · that the railway protection police es_corted the t~ain. The High Gourt accepted these fin'dings and they are not questioned. lift Uniono/Itulia v. M/1, U4M"Ram cll·Sotii Raglubar DaJ•I I. IHI Uroinlqflndia v. II /1. Ullo ~ .. , cir Bou 704 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1963] The trial Court, however, found that the precaution taken of posting railway protection police in a good~ train, in view of the frequent thefts in running trl\iDB between Howrah and Cha.nda.npur, amounted to the railways ta.king proper ca.re of the f.!Oods delivered to them as carriers ~nd that therefore the railways were not guilty of any negligence and mis-conduot. It was of the view that the· railway protection police which usually tra.\•elled in the guard's· van, could not p011sibly know what was happening in the wagons at the other and or in the middle of the train during the journey. It therefore dismissed the suit. On appeal, the High Court held the railways responaible for the Joes which, in it.I< view, wa.e due to its negligenoe and mis-conduct inasmuch a.e there wa.e no evidence on record that the railway protection police took any prooa.utions to see that nobody interfered with the train when it halted for 15 minutes at th11 Howra.h-Burdwan Link at night. There wa.e no other arrangement for watoh and ward at the Link. There was no evidence a.e to what was the strength of the railway protection police or to show that it did stir out of the train see that the wagons were not interfered with. It therefore concluded that the servants of the railway were negligent and did nothing to see that opportunities for theft were eliminated. a.a far a.a possible, that the railway administration wa.e responsible for the negligence of ite employees as it could act through its employees and that there, fore the loss of goods · wa.e due \o the mis-conduct and negligence of the· railways. It therefore reversed the decree of the trial court and decreed the plaintiffs' suit for the a.mount of 1088 held suffered by the plaintiffs. It is this deoree against which the Union of India ha.a obtained the certificate of fitue&11 for appeal from the Punjab High Court ADd hM preferred t.hid apperJ. ' l t 2 8.0.R SUPREME COU&T REPORTS 705 There is no evidence on record that the railway protection police which . escorted the train was adequate in strength for th11 purpose of seeing that the goods were not interfered with in transit. In fact, the defendants did not allege in their written statement that any rail way protection police escorted the train. 'fhe presence of the railway protection police with the train was just deposed to by Chatterjee, D. W, 10, the then Assistant Station Master at Chandanpnr Railway Station. He did not mention that fact in any of his messages or memorandum in which he simply mentioned the presence of the .railway protection police at the time of re--sealing the wagon. He stated in cross examination that he did not rerriem· her from memory . the events of the occurrence. at Chandanpur Station on October J, 1949, .and was making his statement on the basis. of the record before him. However, both the Courts·below have recorded the finding that railway protection police did escort the train. There is no evidence as to why the police force could not see to the non-interference with the wagons when the train halted at the Link where, according to the Courts below, the thieves probably get at the wagon and tampered with its seal and rivets. In the abse.noe of any evidence abo~t· the strength of the railway protection police, the contention of the appellant that the force· wa.a adequate cannot be ·accepted. · • It may be true that any precautions taken may not be always successful against the loss in transit .on account of theft, 'but in the present case there is no evidence with respect to the extent of the ·precautions ta.ken and with respect to what the railway protection police itself did at the place where the train had to stop. We cannot accept the contention that the railway protection police could not have moved out of the guard's van due to the uncertainly of the stoppage of the train at the 1968 - Unio of lnilo v. M/1. Udha&m ... _ - Raghubar Dayal I • 1161 Uni.. of Inlla v. M/•. U'ho Ham di /:Ions 706 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963] signal. It was the job of its members to get down on every stoppagl! of the train and to keep an eye at the various wagons, as bc8t as th~y could. There could be no risk of thu traiu l~aving them on the spot suddenly. Thuy could climb up wh~n the train was to move. The wagon in which the plain. tiffs' goods were, was in the centra of the train. It was the 29th oarriage from the other end. It must be taken to be the duty of railway prutection police to get out of the guard's van wheuever the train stops, be it at the railway platform or at any other plaoe. In fact, the neoe88ity to get down and watch the train when it stops at a place other than a station is greater than when the train stops at a Station, where at least on the station side there would be some persona in whose presence the miBcree.ute would not dare to temper with any wagon and any tempering to be done at a station ie likely to be on the off side. The responsibility of the railways under s. 72 of the Indian Railways Act is subject to the provisions of e. 151 of the Indian Contract Act. Sec· tion 151 states that in all oases of bailment, the bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstance, take of his own goods of the same bulk, quality and value as the goods bailed. Needle88 to say that an ordinary person travelling in a train would be particular ie keeping an eye on his goods especially when the train stops. It is not therefore imposing a higher standard of ca.re on the rllilway administration when it is said t.hat ite staff, and especially the railway protec· tion police specially deputed for the purpose of seeing that no 1088 takee place to the goods, should get down from the wagon and keep an eye on the we.gone in the train in order to aee that no un· authorised pel'BOn geta at the goods. ' - r ~ ' 2 S.C.R, SUPREME COURT REPORTS 707 ' We are therefore of opinion that the finding 1' of the High Court that the loss took place due to the negligence of the railway servants and, conseq11ently, of the railway administration, is justified. We therefore dismiss the appeal with costs. Appeal dismissed. MOHANLAL CHUNILALKOTHARI TRIBHOVAN HARIBHAI TAMBOLI (B. p. SINHA, c. J.; P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, N. RAJA'.GOPALA AYYANGAR and T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.) Suit-Decree-Law changed during pendency of apP