AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramanujulu Naidu, J.—This appeal suit is preferred by the South Central Railway, Secunderabad against the judgment and decree rendered by the District Judge, Adilabad in O.S. No. 6 of 1976 on his file instituted by the Respondent for recovery of damages in a sum of Rs. 17,251/- on account of non-delivery of pulses booked at the Railway Station, Himayatnagar situate in Maharashtra State.
The facts giving rise to the above appeal lie in a narrow compass and may be briefly stated:
Between 4th and 6th of November, 1973 as many as ten consignments of pulses were booked at the railway station, Himyatnagar by several persons for being carried to Adilabad. The Railway Receipts were obtained by the consignors and the same being styled as "Self" were purchased by the Respondent for consideration. Even before the goods could be loaded into wagons the same were seized by Sri Mohd. Sawar (DW 2) a head constable of the Government of Maharashtra State for alleged contravention of the Maharashtra Pulses Procurement (Levy) Order, 1973 The goods were ultimately auctioned by Railway authorities of the State of Maharashtra and a sum of Rs. 6,000/- and odd was realised. Relying upon Section 73(d) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 the Appellant repudiated its liability. The learned District Judge decreed the suit in a sum of Rs. 13,180/- being the value of the goods purchased by the Respondent. The Appellant was however given liberty to claim the amount lying with the revenue authorities of the State of Maharashtra.
` 3. That there was entrustment of goods to the Appellant for being carried to Adilabad was not denied. It was also not in dispute that the goods were not delivered to the Respondent. The factum of seizure of the goods by DW 2 was also not doubted.
Mr. P. Venkatarama Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant however contends that the Appellant enjoys immunity u/s 73(d) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 and that no liability can therefore be fastened upon the Appellant for non-delivery of the goods to the Respondent. Section 73 of the Indian Railways Act, deals with the general responsibility of a railway administration as a carrier of animals and goods. A railway administration is charged with responsibility thereunder for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery, in tranist, of animals or goods delivered to the administration to be carried by railway. The liability ceases to exist in nine categories of cases. One such category is where the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of the goods is due to seizure of the goods under legal process- The railway administration claiming exemption must however prove that it has used reasonable foresight and care in the carriage of the animals or goods. The words ''foresight and care'' are of wide amplitude and should not be understood to apply to the carriage of the goods only. In the case of non-delivery of the goods due to seizure of the same under legal process the ''care'' to be exhibited by the railway administration takes within its ambit an obligation to intimate the factum of seizure of the goods to the consignor/consignee within a reasonable time from the date of seizure so as to enable him to pursue his lawful remedies to recover the goods from the concerned authority that seized the goods under legal process.
The learned District Judge finds on a careful examination and appraisal of the evidence adduced before him that the Appellant did not send any intimation whatsoever to the Respondent appraising the Respondent of the factum of seizure of the goods by DW 2. The finding is based upon acceptable evidence and supported by cognent and convincing reasons Mr. P. Venkatarama Reddy, learned Counsel, appearing for the Appellant does not very rightly in my opinion, assail before me the correctness of the finding. It therefore follows that the Appellant cannot escape the liability for non-delivery of the goods. The conclusion reached by the learned District Judge is therefore not open to attack.
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.