East Indian Railway Company vs Manohar Das-Jai Narayan

This is an appeal by the East Indian Railway Company, the defendant, against a decree for the value of a bale of cloth which was not delivered out of 22 bales consigned from Victoria Terminus to Patna City. The Courts below have held that the defendant Company was not protected by the Risk Note in Form B. This question has been decided so often and so fully in this Court that the matter does not bear any further discussion: see The Great Indian Peninsular Railway Company Vs. Jitan Ram Nirmal Ram, ; G.I. P, Ry. Co. Vs. Rameshwar Prasad and Another, ; and East Indian Railway Co. Vs. Gobardhan Das, .

The decision of the Courts below on this point is wrong and the Company is exempt from liability unless it is proved that the loss of this consignment was due to wilful negligence of the Company.

It is argued on behalf of the respondent that there is a finding of fact of wilful neglect on the part of the Company. What the learned Subordinate Judge found was that when the wagonn which the goods were sent passed Mogulsarai station, it was found that (the seal was broken on one side; and, notwithstanding this, the waggon was allowed to proceed. This is obviously no evidence that the loss was due to wilful neglect without proof that the bale was still in the waggon after the seal was found to be broken.

The appeal is decreed with costs an the suit dismissed with costs throughout.