# UNION 01<' INDIA v. BRIJLAL PURt:SHOTTAMDAS Augu.11 30, 1968

- **Citation:** [1969] 1 S.C.R. 910
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 1145 and 1146 of 1965
- **Bench:** S. M. S!KRl, R. s. BACl!AWAT, K. S. Hegde
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-01-india-v-brijlal-purt-shottamdas-augu-11-30-1968-4539
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

B
Indian Rc;i/ways Act, 1890 (9 of 1890), ss. 74C(3), 74D, 74£ and
80--Goods conJigned aJ owner's risk rate to one rail11·oy adn1inistra1io11
lost through ncgligt·iu:e of anvlhtr railwa,v adn1inistration-Liability of
r.dn1inistration to which xoods consigned-Burden of proving negligence.
·rhe respondent consigned goods to the Southern Raih\·ay to be carried
lo stations on B.N. Railway. at owner's risk ra.tc.
On the goods bein!?
lost \\.'hile at slations on B.N. Rai\\l;ay the respondent sued the Union of
Jndia as representing the two rJiJv,·av administrations.
The Trial Couri
decided against the respondent on thC technical ground that the required
notices were not duly served, but in the respondent's appeal to the High
Court the Union of India conceded that the notices had been duly served
on the Southern Rail\\·ay.
The respondent elected to ask for a decree
:igainst the Southern Railway only. The High Court held that the Southern
Railway to which the goods were delivered by the con<>ignor was liable
under s. 80 of the Rail"•ay Act to pay con1pcnsation for 1he loss. though
the loss was due to the negligence
or misconduct of th-~ B.~. Railway.
The Union of India appcalC<l to this Court.
On hchalf of the appellant
it \\"as urged that (i) the negligence or misconduct of the R.N. Raihvay
could not he fairly inferred from rhc materials on reco"rd and the respondent had not discharged the burden of proof imp0<;~d on him by s. 74C(3)
of the Railv.·ays Act; (ii) the Southern Rallway could nor he held liable
under s. 80 for the los<> due to !he n-egligencc or misconduct of the scr·
vants of the B.N. Railway administrarion.
HELD :(i) The burden of proof under s. 74C(3) is discharged if the
los:; or misconduct C<Ul fairly be inferred upon the disclosure made under
s. 740. [912 GJ
c
D
E
Section 740 cn\'isages a disclosure in the form of a precise statement
of how the consignment v.1as dcnll v.·ith by the administration follo\\·cd hy
F
evidcnco at the trial in proof of the st:itcment. ·inc section contemplates
rhat the administration should first suhmit its evidence at the trial and it is
only \\'hen ncgligcncC or misconduct cannot fairly he inferred from such
evidence. that the hurdcn of provin!! the negligence or misconduct shi'its
to the consignor. (911 D-FJ
If the \\'rittcn statement filed hv the administration disc10scs
fact..;
\vhich sho\I.· 1hat in the common cou.rsc of event<> the loss would not have
G
h;.1p~ncd if proper care had been taken, a presumption of negligence i<>
rai~cd and it is for the adminisrra.tion to rehut it by contrary evidence.
In the ahc;encc of such evidence the court may dra\I.' the infcn.·nce that thl~
J0<:s \Vas cau<>cd hy the negligence of the administration. [913 II)
Jn· the present case from the disclosure made by the apocllant the
nc!!ligencc of the servants of the R.N. Rail\\·ay could be fairly inferred.
[915 DJ
H
S"ra1 Conon Soinn;nt; & Wrtn·;,1.r: Milli: l.td.
India. L.R. 64 LA. 176 and Union of India v.
S C R. 14 '. referred to.
v. Srcretary of Stnte for
.~1ahadeolal,
J l 96S] • 3
A
c
D
E
F
G
H
UNION v. BRIJLAL (Bachawat, J.)
911
(ii) The High Court was justified in holding the Scuthem Railway
liable to pay the compensation. [918 BJ
Section 80 provides that in the case of goods booked through over
the railway of two or more railway administrations. a suit for compensation for loss of goods can be brought against the administration to which
the goods were delivered by 'the consignor irrespective of the question
whether or not the goods were lost on its
railway.
The suit
can
be
brought against the other administrations only if the loss occurred on their
railways.
1be liability under s. 80 is statutory.
The section overrides
all agreements purporting to limit the liability of an administration with
respect to through booked traffic. [916 A-BJ
Section 74E does not restrict or enlarge the liability to be sued under
s. 80.
In the case of goods booked at owner's risk the effect of s. 74E
is that .the Consi

## Text

•
•
910
UNION 01<' INDIA
v.
BRIJLAL PURt:SHOTTAMDAS
Augu.11 30, 1968
A
[S. M. S!KRl, R. s. BACl!AWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.]
B
Indian Rc;i/ways Act, 1890 (9 of 1890), ss. 74C(3), 74D, 74£ and
80--Goods conJigned aJ owner's risk rate to one rail11·oy adn1inistra1io11
lost through ncgligt·iu:e of anvlhtr railwa,v adn1inistration-Liability of
r.dn1inistration to which xoods consigned-Burden of proving negligence.
·rhe respondent consigned goods to the Southern Raih\·ay to be carried
lo stations on B.N. Railway. at owner's risk ra.tc.
On the goods bein!?
lost \\.'hile at slations on B.N. Rai\\l;ay the respondent sued the Union of
Jndia as representing the two rJiJv,·av administrations.
The Trial Couri
decided against the respondent on thC technical ground that the required
notices were not duly served, but in the respondent's appeal to the High
Court the Union of India conceded that the notices had been duly served
on the Southern Rail\\·ay.
The respondent elected to ask for a decree
:igainst the Southern Railway only. The High Court held that the Southern
Railway to which the goods were delivered by the con<>ignor was liable
under s. 80 of the Rail"•ay Act to pay con1pcnsation for 1he loss. though
the loss was due to the negligence
or misconduct of th-~ B.~. Railway.
The Union of India appcalC<l to this Court.
On hchalf of the appellant
it \\"as urged that (i) the negligence or misconduct of the R.N. Raihvay
could not he fairly inferred from rhc materials on reco"rd and the respondent had not discharged the burden of proof imp0<;~d on him by s. 74C(3)
of the Railv.·ays Act; (ii) the Southern Rallway could nor he held liable
under s. 80 for the los<> due to !he n-egligencc or misconduct of the scr·
vants of the B.N. Railway administrarion.
HELD :(i) The burden of proof under s. 74C(3) is discharged if the
los:; or misconduct C<Ul fairly be inferred upon the disclosure made under
s. 740. [912 GJ
c
D
E
Section 740 cn\'isages a disclosure in the form of a precise statement
of how the consignment v.1as dcnll v.·ith by the administration follo\\·cd hy
F
evidcnco at the trial in proof of the st:itcment. ·inc section contemplates
rhat the administration should first suhmit its evidence at the trial and it is
only \\'hen ncgligcncC or misconduct cannot fairly he inferred from such
evidence. that the hurdcn of provin!! the negligence or misconduct shi'its
to the consignor. (911 D-FJ
If the \\'rittcn statement filed hv the administration disc10scs
fact..;
\vhich sho\I.· 1hat in the common cou.rsc of event<> the loss would not have
G
h;.1p~ncd if proper care had been taken, a presumption of negligence i<>
rai~cd and it is for the adminisrra.tion to rehut it by contrary evidence.
In the ahc;encc of such evidence the court may dra\I.' the infcn.·nce that thl~
J0<:s \Vas cau<>cd hy the negligence of the administration. [913 II)
Jn· the present case from the disclosure made by the apocllant the
nc!!ligencc of the servants of the R.N. Rail\\·ay could be fairly inferred.
[915 DJ
H
S"ra1 Conon Soinn;nt; & Wrtn·;,1.r: Milli: l.td.
India. L.R. 64 LA. 176 and Union of India v.
S C R. 14 '. referred to.
v. Srcretary of Stnte for
.~1ahadeolal,
J l 96S] • 3
A
c
D
E
F
G
H
UNION v. BRIJLAL (Bachawat, J.)
911
(ii) The High Court was justified in holding the Scuthem Railway
liable to pay the compensation. [918 BJ
Section 80 provides that in the case of goods booked through over
the railway of two or more railway administrations. a suit for compensation for loss of goods can be brought against the administration to which
the goods were delivered by 'the consignor irrespective of the question
whether or not the goods were lost on its
railway.
The suit
can
be
brought against the other administrations only if the loss occurred on their
railways.
1be liability under s. 80 is statutory.
The section overrides
all agreements purporting to limit the liability of an administration with
respect to through booked traffic. [916 A-BJ
Section 74E does not restrict or enlarge the liability to be sued under
s. 80.
In the case of goods booked at owner's risk the effect of s. 74E
is that .the Consignor cannot recover compensation for loss except upon
proof that the loss was due to the negligence or misconduct of an admi-
.nistratlon. [917 E-918 BJ
Secretary of State & Ors. v. Afzal Husain, A.I.R. 1920 Oudh. 70 and
D. H. Rly. Co. v. Jetmull Bhojraj, A.LR. 1956 Cal. 390, disapproved.
Bengal & N. W. R/y. Co. v. Haji Mutsaddi &
Anr.
7
LC.
160,
approved.
Muschamp v. Lancaster Etc. Junction Rly. Co. 8 M&W 421-151 E.R.
!l03, Jetmull Bhojraj v. Darjeeling Himalayan Rly. Co. Ltd.,
[1963] 1
S.C.R. 832, Union of India v. Shamsuddin Waizuddin, A.I.R. 1958 Pat,
575 and Chandrasekharam v. Union of India, A.LR. 1960 Orissa JOO,
referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1145
and 1146 of 1965.
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated May 9, 1960
of the Calcutta High Court in Appeals from Original Decrees
Nos. 267 and 268 of 1954.
V. A. Seyid Muhammad and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant
(in both the appeals).
Sar/oo Prasad and B. Parthasarathy, for the respondent (in
botl1 the appeals),
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bachawat, J. On March 28, 1951 the respondent consigned
10 bales of staple fibre yarn to the Southern Railway at Pudukad
for carriage to Shalimar on the Bengal Nagpur Railway at the
owner's risk rate.
Of the 10 bales consigned only 5 bales were
delivered to the respondent.
The respondent filed Suit No. 7 of
1952 against the Union of India representing the two
railway
administrations claiming damages for non-delivery of 5 bales. On
March 28, 1951 the respondent consigned 10 bales of staple fibre
yarn to Podnur on the Southern Railway for carriage to Shalimar
on the Bengal Nagpur Railway at the owner's risk rate. Of the
0 l 0 bales consigned, only 1 bale was delivered to the respondent.
The respondent filed Suit No. 6 of 1952 against the Union of
•
•
•
• 912
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 1 s.cR.
India, representing the two railway administrations claiming nondelivery of 9 bales.
The two courts concurrcntlv held that the
loss was due to negligence or misconduct of the -servants of the
H ;ngal Nagpur Railway administration.
The Trial Court held
t.iat the notices under SC<.:. 77 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890
and sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not duly served
and dismissed the suits.
The plaintiff filed two appeals.
Defore
the High Court the Union of India conceded that the notices were
duly served on the General :'\lanager, Southern Railway and the
plaintiff elected to ask for a decree against the Southern Raiiwa>,
only.
The High Court held that the Southern Railway to which
the goods were delivered by the consignor was liable to pay compensation for the loss, though th~ loss was due to the negligence
o~ misconduct of the Bengal Nagpur Railway.
Tl1e High Court
allowed the appeals and decreed the suits.
The present appeals
have been liled on certificates granted by the High Court.
Two questions have been canvassed in the;c appeals.
Firstly.
it is argued that the misconduct or negligence of the servants of
ihe lkugal Nagpur Railway administration cannot
fairly be inforreJ from the matcriars on the record.
Secondly. it is argued
that the Southern Railway administration cannot be held respo~
siblc for tire misconduct or negligence of the servants
of
the
llen;;al :\"agpur Railway administration.
The case is governed by the Indian Railways Act, as it stoot\
in l 951.
The goods were carried at owner's risk rate, and sections 74C(3J and 740 of the Act were attracted.
Section 74C
( 3) provides that in such a case the Railwav Administration was
not responsible for any loss, destruction. deierioration or damage
to the g:iods from any cause whatsoever "except upon proof thnt
such loss, destruction. deterioration or damage was due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration
or any of its servants."
As the explanation of the loss is wnhin
the exclusive knowledge of the railwav administration it is almost
impossible !or the consignor to discliarge this burden of pr_oof.
Section 740 lid1tens this burden and imposes upon the adm1ni>-
tration m some cases the duty of disclosing to the consignor how
the con,;ignment or the package was dealt with throughout the
time it was in its possession or control.
If the negligence or misconduct can fairly be inferred uJJOn such disclosu'e the burden
of proof under sec. 74C(3) is discharged.
Section 740 is as
follows ·--
,
··:-<otwithstanding anything contained
in
section
7~C-
( a) where the whole of a consignment of goods or
the whole 0'. any package forming part of a consignment carried ·,rt owner's risk rate is not delivered to the
A
c
D
E
F
G
H
•
.A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
UNION V. BRIJLAL (Bachawat, .I.)
consignee and such non-delivery is not proved b:I'. the
railway administration to have been due to any accident
to the train or to fire, or
(b) where, in respect of any consignment of goods
or of any package which had been. so covered or protected that the covering or protecuon was not re.adily
removable by hand, it is point~ ont to the rrulway
administration on or before delivery that any part of
such consignment or package had been pilfered in
transit,
\
913
the railway ad~inistration shall be bound to disclose to
the consignor
how the consigrnnent or package was
dealt with throughout the time it was in its possession
or control, but if negligence or misconduct on the part
of the railway administration or of any of its servants
cannot be fairly be inferred from such disclosure, the
burden of proving such negligence or misconduct shall
lie on the consignor."
•
Section 74D envisages a disclosure in the form of a precise
statement of how the consignment was dealt with by the administration followed by evidence at the trial in proof of the statement
The section clearly contemplates that on this matter the administration should submit its evidence first at the trial, and it is only
when negligence or misconduct cannot fairly be inferred from
such evidence that the burden of proving the negligence or misconduct shifts to the consignor. In Surat Cotton Spinning &
Weavin~ Mills Ltd. v. Secrelary of State for fndia(') and Union
oj India v. Mahadeola/(2) the Risk Note B and Z under consideration provided that in certain cases "the railway administration
shall be bound to disclose to the consignor how the consignment
was dealt ·with throughout the time it was in its possession or
control and if necessary to give evidence thereof before the consignor is called upon to prove misconduct." Section 74D does
not expressly provide that the administration is bound if necessary to lead evidence as to how it dealt with the consignment
before the consignor is called upan to prove misconduct or negligence but we think that this obliglltion is implicit in the duty of
disclosure imposed by the section.
If the written statement filed by the administration discloses
facts which show that in the common course of events the loss
would not have happened if proper care had been taken, a presumption of negligence is raised and it is for the administration
to rebut it by contrary evidence.
In the absence of such evidence
the court may draw the inference that the loss was caused by the
1'egligence of the administration.
(i)L.R. 64 l.A. 176.
(2) (1965] 3 S.C.R. 145.
)
•
•
•
91~
SCPREME COURT R,EPORTS
[ 1969] I S.CR.
In the present case 14 packages were not delivered to the
respondent and such non-delivery was not due to any accident to
the train or to fire.
The case therefore fell within cl. (a) of se<:.
740.
The packages were carried by the Southern Raiiway and
the Hengal Nagpur Railway administrations and the two administrations became bound to disclose to the respondent
how
the
packages were dealt with throughout the time they were in their
possession or control.
The Union of India representing both the
achninistrations filed separate \vrittcn state1ncnts in the two suits.
It made a fuller and more detailed disclosure in the written statement filed in Suit :"io. 6 of I 952.
The written statement did not
mention any transhipment at Raipuram (Madras) but at the tri~l
it was proved that the consignments were transhipped at Raipuram
in wagon 1'o. 37933. The wagon was carried upto Waltair where
the Southern Railways ended. Thereafter the wagon was carried
over the Bengal J\'agpur Railways.
In the written statement in Suit 1'o. 6 of J 952 the Union or
India pleaded that the consignments were correctly received at
Vizianagram whence they went loaded in \\agon No. 37933 in
sound condition.
The train was last checked at Danton and all
seais were found intact.
The wagon in
due
course
reached
Contai Road where the train was· detained for 22 minutes and
the guard kept a proper watch on both sides of the train.
After
starting from Contai Road the guard noticed some bales lying
on the left side of the track between Contai Road and Bakhrabad.
He stopped the train at Bakhrabad. the next station.
When the
train stopped he saw 4 men running away on the left side with
torch lights.
On checking he found the door of wagon No. 5330·~
open.
After all necessary steps regarding this wagon were taken.
tbe train started.
As the staff at Bakhrabad station was short,
no arrangement could be made for picking up the bales lying near
the railway track.
On arrival at Kharagpur he found the cloor
of wagon No. 37933 open and the sea[ card hanging on the rin~.
Tiie wagon was checked and the suit packages were found missing.
The defective condition of its seal escaped the notice of the
~uard earlier.
Presumably wagon No. 37933 was interfered
with between Contai Road and Bakhrahad and the hales lying ''Y
the side of the track were dropped from this wagon.
Three b<1les
were recovered but the party refused to take delivery.
The Joss
of the bales was due to theft in transit when the train was on the
run between Contai Road and Bakhrabad.
·
It is surprising that after having made ~his disclosure tile_ appellant dicl not call the guard or any other Witness from Contat Road
or Bakhrabad.
The "uard was present in court at the hearing
of the case.
At the close of the e\~dencc an application for
adiourrunent was moved by the appellant stating that the rougr1
journal book of the guard was mislaid and some. time was necesA
B
c
F
G
H
•
A
B
c
•
D
E
F
'
G
H
UNION v. BRIJLAL (Bachawat, I.)
915.
sary to trace it.
The adjournment was granted.
On the adjourn-.
ed date the guard was not examined nor was the book produced
and no explanation was given for this omission.
Having regard
to the disclosure made in the written statement, it was for the
appellant to prove that it had kept proper watch over the wagon
while the train was detained at Contai Road and had taken proper care of the package lying on the track. Three packages werelater recovered but no evidence was Jed to prove that they were
offered to the respondent.
The appellant called witnesses from .
Raipuram, Bhadrak and Kharagpur.
The witness from Raipuram
tound wagon No. 37933 to be in good condition.
No witness
from Vizianagram was called. The witness from Bhadrak check•.
ed the wagon and found the seal intact.
The written &tatement
shows that the seal was checked at Danton.
Danton is about
126 kilo-metres away from Bhadrak.
No witness was called to.
prove that the seal was found intact at Danton.
The witnesses .
from Kharagpur found that the wagon was without seal and rivet
on one side. Had the wagon been properly fastened and secured'
1t is not likely that the packages would be so easily taken out at
Contai Road.
From the disclosure made by the appellant, the·
negligence of the servants of the Bengal Nagpur Railway administiation may fairly be inferred.
The administration was negligent :
(1) in not properly riveting the wagon; (ii) in not keep_ing watch
ever the train at Contai Road; (iii) in not taking proper care of
the packages lying on the track between Contai Road and Bakhra-.
bad and (iv) in not delivering the packages subsequently recovered•
by it to the consignor.
The next question is whether the respondent can claim com--
pe~sation for the loss under ~- 80 from ~he Southern Railway to,.
"h1ch the packages were dehvered by him.
Section 80 is
as,
foliows :-
"Notwithstanding anything in any agreement purporting to limit the liability of a railway administration with·
respect to traffic while on the railway of another administration, a suit for compensation for loss of the life of,
or personal injury to, a passenger, or for loss destruction or deterioration of animals or goods where
the·
passenger was or the animals or goods were booked
through over the railways of two or more railway admimstrations, may be brought either against the railway
administration from which the passenger obtained his
pass or purchased his ticket, or to which the animals or
goods were delivered by the consignor thereof, as the.-
case may be or against the railway administration on
•whose railway the loss, injury, destruction or deterioration occurred."
•
•
•
•
'916
SCPREME COURT REPORTS
[l 969) J S.C.R.
'"i'he section provides that in the case of goods booked through
A
over the railway of two or more railway adrninistratiom. a suit
for compensation for loss of the goods can be hrought ai!ainst the
.admm1stration to which the goods were delivered by the c<lnsignor irrespective of the question whether or not the goods were
B
lose on ib railway.
The suit can be brought against ti1e oth~r
administrations only if the loss occurred on their railways.
The
liabiiity under sec. 80 is statutory.
The section
overrides
all
agreements purporting to limit the liability of an administration
with respect to through booked traffic.
Thc;c was never any doubt that the railway company which
'contracted to carry goods partly over its own railway and partly
over tile railways of other carriers was responsible for th~ goods
for the whole journey unless it limited its liability by agreement.
(see M uscliamp v. Lancaster f,'tc., Junction Rly. Co.) ( ').
The
-only doubt was about the responsibility of the other companies
over whose railway the goods were carried.
Before sec. 80 wa'
.enacted there was elaborate case law on the question whether they
could be held liable in tort or by recour.se to the
doctrine of
agency or partnership. Section 80 now places the liability of all
the railway administrations concerned on a firm statut 'r:r footing.
In Secretary of State & Ors. v. Af::.al Husain('), Lindsay
J.C. held that the G.l.P. Rly. to which the goods haJ been deliverea !or carriage to a station on the 0 & R. Rly. was not Iiahl~
for ioss occurring on the 0 & R. Rly. due to the negligence of
the latter railway.
In D. H. Rly Co. v. Jetmull Jihojraj(") the
C~Iculta High Court held that the G.l.P. Rly, to which the goods
had been delivered for carriage to a station on the
Darjeeling
Himalayan Rly. was not responsible for the loss occunin~ on the
Jailer 1"1ilway.
It may be mentioned that the actual dccis'on in
the Calcutta case was reversed by this Court on another p,iint in
.Tctm11/l lJhojraj v. /Jariceli1'g 1-lima/ayan l?ly. Co. Ltd(').
We
thini( that the Oudh and the Calcutta cases were not co"cctly
dedcled.
They ignore the clear wording of sec. 80. If ;t was
the intention of the legislature to give a right of suit oniy a~ai11st
.the auministration on whose line the loss occurred it woulc! have
<;aid so.
The section gives a right of suit against the administration to which the goods are delivered by the consignor and it
matters not that the loss occurred while the goods were being
carrie<i bv another administration and was due to the negligence
of the latter. Jn Bengal & N. W. Rly Co. v. Haji
Mutsaddi
&
Anr.(') the Allahabad High Court rightly held that the B. & N.W.
Ratlway to which the goods were delivered for carriage
to a
------·-- -
(t) 8 ~ & W. 421-151 E.R. llOJ.
(2) A.l.R.19200udh0 70 .
. (J) A.t.R. 1956 C:11. 390.
(4) [1961] I S.C.R. SJ2,
(5)
7 J.C. 160.
c
D
E
G
H
...
•
..
UNION v. BRIJLAL (Bachawat, /.)
A
station on the E. I. Railway was liable to ·pay compensation for
the loss, though the loss occurred on the latter Railway.
The appellant argued that under sec. 74E the
respondent
1Hmst be deemed to have contracted with the Bengal Nagpur
"kailway only for the carriage of the goods over that railway's
line and that he had no remedy against the Southern Railway.
B
The contention is based upon a misreading of sec.
74E. The
material part of that section rll[ns as follows :-
"When any animals or goods tendered to a railway
administration for carriage by railway have been booked
through over the railways of two or more railway
administrations or over one or more railway administraC
tions and one or more transport systems not belonging
to any railway administration, the person tendering the
animais or goods to the railway administration shall be
deemed to have contracted with each one of the railway
administrations or the owners of the transport systems
concerned, as the case may be, that the provisions of
D
secs. 73, 74A, 74B, 74C, 74D and 75 shall apply, so
far as may be, in relation to the carriage of such animals
or goods in the same manner and to the same extent as
they would have applied if the animals or goods had
been carried over only one railway administration."
It is to be observed that sec. 72 defines the general responsibility
E
of a railway administration as a carrier of goods. Sections 73,
74A, 74B, 74C, 74D and 75 contain special provisions limiting
the general responsibility as defined in sec. 72.
The effect of
s. 74E is that in the case of goods booked through over the railways of two or more administrations the consignor is deemed to
have contracted with each one of them, that those special proviF
sions shall apply, so far as may be, in relation to the carriage of
goods in the same manner and to the same extent as they would
have applied if the goods had been carried over only one administration.
In the present case, the goods were carried at owner's
risk rate over the railways of two administrations and having
regard to s. 74E, the provisions of .secs. 74C(3) and sec. 740
apply to each administration as if the goods were carried over
G
only one administration. In view of secs. 74C(3) and 740 the
consignor cannot recover compensation for loss except upon
proof that the loss was due to the negligence or misconduct of an
administration. If loss due to such negligence or misconduct is
proved, he may under s. 80 sue the administration to which the
goods were delivered by him or the administration on whose
H
r:iil':"~Y the loss occ_ui;red. . Section 7 4E does not enlarge the
h:iJ?ihty of the adm1mstrat10n
to which
the consignor did not
dehver the goods and such administration can be sued only if the
loss occurred on its railway. Accordingly, in Union of India v.
L!Sup.CT/69-12
•
•
•
• 918
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 1 SC.R
Shamsuddin Waizuddin(') the Patna High Court held that where
A
the goods had been delivered to the Mysore railway for carriage
to a station on the Eastern Railway, the latter was not made
liable by sec. 74E for Joss occurring on other railways.
Thi;
decision was followed in Chandrasekharam v. Union of India('). 1
Likewise s. 74E does not restrict the liability imposed by s. 80 on '
the administration to which the goods were delivered by the con -
B
signor.
That administration is liable to be sued under sec. 80
for the loss whether or not the loss occurred on the railway of
another administration.
It follows that the High Court rightly
dccrocd the suit<.
In the result, the appeals are dismissed with costs.
G.C.
Appeals dismissed.
(I) A.1.R. !%8 p.,,_ <7<.
•
(2) A.LR. 1960 Orissa. 100.