AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Govinda Menon, J.—The plaintiff, whose suit for Rs. 113-6-3 being the value of the shortage of goods, due to him from the defendant,
inclusive of proportionate freight charges has been dismissed, is the petitioner, in this civil revision petition, and the only question that arises, as the
learned District Munsif has stated, is whether the defendant-railway is liable for the alleged loss occasioned to the plaintiff during the transit. There
was a consignment weighing 15 maunds 30 seers of textile material from Madura to Bezwada according to the railway receipt, which is marked in
the case Ex. B. 5. The plaintiff as the consignee when he took delivery of the goods at Bezwada found that the quantity was short by 22 seers and
he took open delivery of it. The present suit is for the recovery of the price of 22 seers of goods. The lower Court has dismissed the suit on the
ground that in the absence of proof that the shortage occurred on account of the misconduct on the part of the railway, the plaintiff is not entitled to
any relief.
In revision, it is argued for Messrs. John and Row by Mr. Sriramamurthi, that according to the clause in risk note Z 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 and control and if
necessary to give evidence before the consignor is called upon to prove misconduct; but if misconduct on the part of the railway administration or
its servants cannot be fairly inferred from such evidence the burden of proving such misconduct will only be on the consignor. What is contended is
that in this case the railway administration has not let in any evidence to show how the consignment was dealt with during the time it was in its
possession, in transit from Madura to Bezwada. If the railway had Jet in evidence to show that proper care was taken of the package while it was
being transported both over the South Indian Railway and the Madras and Southern Maharatta railway, then the burden shifts to the plaintiff to
show misconduct on the part of the railway servants. The argument, therefore, urged is that there is no obligation on the part of the plaintiff to
prove any misconduct on the part of the railway administration, and if it is shown that there has been shortage during the course of transit, then the
plaintiff is entitled to damages for that shortage.
On the other hand, on behalf of the railway administration Mr. Sampath Kumar of Messrs. King and Partridge has put forward the contention
that if the risk note Z had stood alone, probably the plea put forward on behalf of the plaintiff might be of some avail. But, in this case, it is admitted
that the consignor had executed another risk note in the form risk note A, which very much reduces and clinches the liability of the railway
administration. Risk note A premises by saying that it will be used when articles are tendered for carriage which are either already in bad condition
or so defectively packed as to be liable to damages, leakage, or wastage in transit. Therefore, when once risk note A is taken in addition to the
ordinary risk note Z, the inference is possible that at the time the package was tendered for transit, it was either in a bad condition or so defectively
packed as to be liable to damages. Since both risk notes have been executed, the question is whether the provisions contained in risk note A
should prevail over risk note Z. In my view, risk note Z is the general form of risk note for all kinds of goods handed over to the railway
administration for transit and risk note A is the particular kind of risk note to be used only in special cases where the package is defectively or
insufficiently packed so as to be liable for damages. In view of the principle that a special contract or provision supersedes a general provision or a
general contract, we have to take it that the parties have to be governed by the terms of risk note A.
On this aspect of the case, my attention has been invited to a decision of a single Judge of the Patna High Court in -- Governor-General in
Council Vs. Thakursi Dass, in which the facts are somewhat similar. There also the consignor had executed two risk notes, risk note A and risk
note Z when the railway administration was confronted with a claim for damages, they choose to take their stand on the terms and provisions of
risk note A and disclaimed liability. The learned Judge, in disposing of that contention in favour of the railway administration, observed as follows:
So much for risk note Z. But in the present ease the consignor also executed risk note A, and thereby even further exempted the railway
administration from liability. Obviously where two risk notes have been executed limiting the railway''s liability, it is open to the Railway
administration to take advantage of either, and if under either it can be shown that the railway administration has escaped liability, then the suit must
be dismissed, even if some other form of risk note might also have been executed under which it might be held that liability had not been fully taken
away. Risk note A is a special form of risk note to be used when articles are tendered for carriage which are either already in bad condition or so
defectively packed as to be liable to damage, leakage or wastage in transit.
I have been asked by the learned counsel for the petitioner to dissent from the view taken by Meredith J. of the Patna High Court. But no
arguments have been advanced as to why I should dissent from that view. How and under what circumstances the consignor came to execute Risk
note A has not been made clear. The fact, that risk note A has been executed raises the presumption that the railway administration insisted on its
execution, because the package was either insufficiently packed or liable to leakage and damage. In this view, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff in
order to mulct the railway administration with liability, to prove misconduct. He cannot sit quiet and leave the burden on the railway administration
for showing how the consignment was dealt with during the course of transit and thereafter try to let in evidence of misconduct. In this case, he has
not attempted to prove any misconduct trusting himself to the burden on the railway administration as contained in the clause in risk note Z.
In addition to this, there is a further circum stance in this case that under Rule 15, Goods Tariff General Rules, the railway administration does
not admit that the weight as shown in the railway receipt has been received or that the description of the goods as furnished by the consignor is
correct. The learned District Munsif came to the conclusion that at the time the goods were accepted for transit at Madura, there is no evidence to
show that they were weighed or that the weight of 15 maunds & 30 seers was the correct weight. I am, therefore, of the opinion that no
interference is called for in revision and this civil revision petition is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.