Appeals Nos 601 and 602 of 1963
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated December 9 1958 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeals Nos
373 of 1945 and 92 of 1946
582 Civil Appeal No 603 of 1963
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated December 9 1958 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No 374 of 1945
N D Karkhanis and R N Sachthey for the appellant in all the three appeals
G section Pathak Rameswar Nath section N Andley and P I Vohra for the respondents in all the three appeals
Wanchoo J These three appeals raise common questions and will be dealt with together
They arise out of two suits filed against the Government of India claiming damages for loss of goods which were destroyed by fire on the railway platform at Morar Road Railway Station
One of the suits was filed by Birla Cotton Factory Limited now represented by the West Punjab Factories Limited hereinafter referred to as the Factory
It related to six consignments of cotton bales booked from six stations on various dates in February and March 1943 by the Factory to Morar Road Railway Station
In five of the cases the consignment was con Signed to J C Mills while in one it was consigned to self
The consignments arrived at Morar Road Railway Station or
various dates in March Delivery was given of a part of one consignment on March 7 1943 while the remaining goods were still in the custody and possession of the railway
On March 8 1943 a fire broke out at the Morar Road Railway Station and these goods were involved in the fire and severe damage was caused to them
It is not necessary to refer to the details of the damage for that matter is not in dispute between the parties
The case of the Factory was that the damage and loss was caused while the goods were in the custody and control of the railway administration and it was due to misconduct negligence and carelessness on the part of the railway administration
Consequently the suit was filed for Rs 77000 and odd along with interest upto the date of the suit and interest pendente lite and future interest
In the other suit there was one consignment of 45 bales of cotton yarn
This consignment was booked from Belangunj to Morar Road Railway Station on February 22 1943 and the railway receipt relating to this consignment was endorsed in favour of Ishwara Nand Sarswat who filed the suit
This consignment arrived at 583 Morar Road Railway Station on February 23 1943
Ishwara Nand Sarswat went to take delivery of this consignment on March 10 1943 his case being that be had received the railway receipt on March 9 1943
He then came to know that the consignment was involved in a fire which had taken place on March 8 1943 and severe damage had been done to the consignment
Ishwara Nand Sarswat therefore filed the suit on the ground that damage and loss was due entirely to the gross negligence of the railway administration
He claimed Rs 72000 and odd as damages and also claimed interest upto the date of the suit and pendente lite and future interest
The suits were resisted by the Government of India
In the first suit by the Factory it was pleaded that the Factory could not sue as  the goods in five of the receipts had been consigned to the J C Mills secondly it was pleaded that delivery had been given of atleast five of the consignments to the JC Mills before the fire broke out and the railway administration was not therefore responsible for the damage done by the fire for it was the fault of the J C Mills not to have removed the goods immediately after the delivery thirdly it was pleaded that damages should have been granted at the rate of Rs 38 per bale which was the price contracted for between the buyer and the seller and not at the market rate on the date of the damage as was done by the courts below  fourthly it was pleaded that no interest should have been allowed for the period before the suit and lastly it was pleaded that the conduct of the railway administration was not negligent and there fore the railway was not bound to make good the loss
On these pleas five main issues relating to each of them were framed by the trial court
The trial court found that the Factory could maintain the suit and decided accordingly
It also found that in the case of five consignments by the Factory delivery had been given before the fire broke Out and therefore the railway was not responsible in the case of the sixth consignment it held that there was no proof that delivery bad been given before the fire broke out and that the railway would be responsible if negligence was proved
On the quantum of damages the trial court held that the damages had to be calculated at the market price on the date of the fire and not at the contract price between the buyer and seller
On the question of interest the trial court held that interest before the date of the suit should be allowed on equitable  rounds
Finally on the question of negligence the trial court held that there was negligence by the railway and it was therefore liable for loss and damage caused by the fire which broke out on L7Sup65 9 584 March 8 1943
As however the trial court had held that delivery had been given in the case of five consignments though the goods had not been removed the railway was not responsible for the loss
It therefore decreed the suit in part with respect to the sixth consignment about which it had found that there had been no delivery
The same issues were raised in the suit by Ishwara Nand Saraswat
But there was one additional issue in that suit based on the contention of the Government of India that it had given notice to Ishwara Nand that the consignment had arrived on February 23 1943 Ishwara Nand however did not come to remove the goods till March 8 1943 when the fire broke out therefore it was urged that the liability of the railway administration as carrier had ceased after the lapse of reasonable time after arrival of the consignment at the railway station
This reasonable time could not be beyond three days in any case and therefore the railway administration was not bound to make good the loss even if it had been occasioned on account of the negligence of the administration
As Ishwara Nand should have removed the consignment within three days of February 23 it was his failure to do so which resulted in the damage and loss
The issues which were common to this suit and the suit by the Factory were decided on the same lines by the trial court as in the suit by the Factory
On the further issue which arose in this suit as to the delay in the removal of goods after notice to Ishwara Nand the trial court held after reference to certain rules made by the railway administration that even if the railway administration s responsibility as carrier had ceased after the lapse of reasonable time it was still liable as a bailee either as a warehouseman or as a gratuitous bailee
It therefore gave a decree for Rs 76000 and odd to Ishwara Nand
Then followed three appeals to the High Court two in the suit by the Factory and one in the suit of Ishwara Nand
The appeal in the suit by Ishwara Nand was by the Government of India one appeal in the suit by the Factory was by the factory with respect to that part of the claim which had been dismissed and the case of the Factory was that in fact no delivery had been made to it and it was entitled to the entire sum claimed as damages
The other appeal was by the Government of India with respect to the amount decreed by the trial court and it raised all the contentions which had been raised before the trial court
The High Court dealt with the three appeals together
In all appeals the High Court confirmed the finding of the trial court that there had been negligence on the part of the railway which 585 resulted in damage to the goods
On the question whether the suit could be maintained by the plaintiffs the High Court affirmed the finding of the trial court that both the suits were maintainable
The High Court also affirmed the finding of the trial court with respect to the rate at which damages should be calculated and on the question of interest before the date of the suit
Further in the suit by Ishwara Nand the High Court held that even if the railway administration ceased to be responsible as a carrier after a reasonable time had elapsed after the arrival of the goods at Morar Road Railway Station it was still responsible as a warehouseman
The appeal therefore of the Government of India in Ishwara Nand s suit was dismissed
On the question of delivery in the Factory  suit the High Court disagreed with the finding of the trial court that there had been delivery of five consignments
It held that there was no effective delivery even of these five consignments
In consequence the appeal of the Factory was allowed while that of the Government of India was dismissed
Then followed applications to the High Court for leave to appeal to this Court in the Factory s suit Me High Court granted the certificate as the judgment was one of variance and the amount involved was over rupees twenty thousand
However in the suit of Ishwara Nand the High Court refused to grant a certificate as the judgment was one of affirmance and no substantial question of law arose
Thereupon the Government of India applied to this Court for special leave in Ishwara Nand s suit and that was granted
The three appeals have been consolidated in this Court for as will be seen from what we have said above the principal points in volved in them are common
Learned counsel for the appellant has not and could not challenge the concurrent finding of the trial court and of the High Court that the fire which caused the damage was due to the negligence of the railway administration
But the learned counsel has pressed the other four points which were raised in the courts below
He contends i that the suits as filed were not maintainable ii that the High Court was in error in reversing the finding of the trial court that the delivery had been given with respect to five of the consignments in the Factory s suit iii that damages should have been awarded at Rs 38 per bale which was the contract price between the buyer and seller and not at the market price on the date on which the damage took place and iv that interest could not be awarded for the period before the suit on the amount of damages decreed
586 Re
The contention of the appellant with respect to five of the consignments in the suit of the Factory was that as the consignee of the five railway receipts was the JC Mills the consignor namely the Factory could not bring the suit with respect thereto and only the JC Mills could maintain the suit
Ordinarily it is the consignor who can sue if there is damage to the consignment for the contract of carriage is between the consignor and the railway administration
Where the property in the goods carried has passed from the consignor to some one else that other person may be able to sue
Whether in such a case the consignor can also sue does not arise on the facts in the present case and as to that we say nothing
The argument on behalf of the appellant is that the railway receipt is a document of title to goods see section 24 of the Indian Sale of Goods Act No 3 of 1930 and as such it is the consignee who has title to the goods where the consignor and consignee are different
It is true that a railway receipt is a document of title to goods covered by it but from that alone it does not follow where the consignor and consignee are different that the consignee is necessarily the owner of goods and the consignor in such circumstances can never be the owner of the goods
The mere fact that the consignee is different from the consignor does not necessarily pass title to the goods from the consignor to the consignee and the question whether title to goods has passed to the consignee will have to be decided on other evidence
It is quite possible for the consignor to retain title in the goods himself while the consignment is booked in the name of another person
Take a simple case where a consignment is booked by the owner and the consignee is the owner s servant the intention being that the servant will take delivery at the place of destination
In such a case the title to the goods would not pass from the owner to the consignee and would still remain
with the owner the consignee being merely a servant or agent of the owner or consignor for purposes of taking delivery at the place of destination
It cannot therefore be accepted simply because a consignee in a railway receipt is different from a consignor that the consignee must be held to be the owner of the goods and he alone can sue and not the consignor
As we have said already ordinarily the consignor is the person who has contracted with the railway for the carriage of goods and he can sue and it is only where title to the goods has passed that the consignee may be able to sue
Whether title to goods has passed from the consignor to the consignee will depend upon the facts of each case and so we have to look at the evidence produced in this case to decide whether in the case of five con 587 signments booked to the JC Mills the title to the goods had passed to the Mills before the fire broke out on March 8 1943
We may add that both the courts have found that title to the goods had not passed to the J C Mills by that date and that it was still in the consignor and therefore the Factory was entitled to sue
We may in this connection refer briefly to the evidence on this point
The contract between the Factory and the J C Mills was that delivery would be made by the seller at the godowns of the J C Mills
The contract also provided that the goods would be dispatched by railway on the seller s risk up to the point named above namely the godowns of the J C Mills
Therefore the property in the goods would only pass to the J C Mills when delivery was made at the godown and till then the consignor would be the owner of the goods and the goods would be at its risk
Ordinarily the consignments would have been booked in the name of self but it seems that there was some legal difficulty in booking the consignments in the name of self and therefore the J C Mills agreed that the consignments might be booked in the Mills  name as consignee but it was made clear by the J C Mills that the contract would stand unaffected by this method of consignment and all risk responsibility and liability regarding these cotton consignments would be of the Factory till they were delivered to the J C Mills in its godowns as already agreed upon under the contract and all losses arising from whatever cause to the cotton thus consigned would be borne by the Factory till its delivery as indicated above
This being the nature of the contract between the consignor and the consignee in the present case we have no hesitation in agreeing with the courts below that the property in the goods was still with the Factory when the fire broke out on March 8 1943
Therefore the ordinary rule that it is the consignor who can sue will prevail here because it is not proved that the consignor had parted with the property in the goods even though the consignments were booked in the name of the J C Mills
We are therefore of opinion that the suit of the Factory was in view of these circumstances maintainable
As to the suit by Ishwara Nand he relies on two circumstances in support of his right to maintain the suit
In the first place he contended that he was the owner of the goods and that was why the railway receipt was endorsed in his favour by the consignor though it was booked to self
In the second place it was contended that as an endorse to a document of title he was in any case entitled to maintain the suit
The trial court found on the evidence that it had been proved satisfactorily that Ishwara Nand 588 was the owner of the goods
It also held that as an endorse of a document of title he was entitled to sue
These findings of the trial court on the evidence were accepted by the High Court in these words  It was not contended before us that the finding arrived at by the learned court below that the plaintiff had the right to sue was wrong nor could in view of the overwhelming evidence such an issue be raised
The evidence on the point has already been carefully analysed by the court below
We accept the finding and confirm it
It was also pointed out that Ishwara Nand was the endorsed consignee and in that capacity he had in any case a right to bring the suit
The correctness of this statement was not challenged before us
 Thus there are concurrent findings of the two courts below that Ishwara Nand was the owner of the goods and that was why the railway receipt was endorsed in his favour
In these circumstances he is certainly entitled to maintain the suit
The contention that the plaintiffs in the two suits could not maintain them
must therefore be rejected
The contention under this head is that five of the consignments had been delivered to the J C Mills before March 8 1943 and therefore the railway was not responsible for any loss caused by the fire which broke out after the consignments had been delivered on March 6 and 7 1943
It was urged that it was the fault of the J C Mills that it did not remove the consignments from the railway station by March 7 and the liability for the loss due to fire on March 8 must remain on the J C Mills
The trial court had held in favour of the appellant with respect to these five consignments
But the High Court reversed that finding holding that there was no real delivery on March 6 and 7 though the delivery book had been signed on behalf of the J C Mills and the railway receipts had been handed over to the railway in token of delivery having been taken
It was not disputed that the delivery book had been signed and the railway receipts had been delivered to the railway but the evidence was that it was the practice at that railway station so far as the J C Mills was concerned to sign the delivery book and hand over the railway receipts and give credit vouchers in respect of the freight of the consignment even before the goods had been unloaded from wagons
It appeared from the evidence that what used to happen was that as soon the wagons 589 arrived and they were identified as being wagons containing consignments in favour of the J C Mills the consignee namely the J C Mills used to surrender the railway receipts
 sign the delivery book and give credit vouchers in respect of the receipt of freight due even before the goods were unloaded from wagons
This practice was proved from the evidence of Har Prashad DW 6 who was the Assistant Goods Clerk at Morar Road at the relevant time
He was in charge of making delivery of such goods there being no Goods Clerk there
He admitted that signature of Ishwara Nand as agent of the J C Mills was taken as soon as the consignments were received and identified by Ishwara Nand without being unloaded
He further admitted that there had been no actual delivery to Ishwara Nand of the consignments and this happened with respect to all the five consignments
Ishwara Nand signed the delivery book in token of having received the delivery and surrendered the railway receipts though when he did so the wagons were not even unloaded
On this evidence the High Court held that it could not be said that there was any effective delivery of the goods to the J C Mills through Ishwara Nand though token delivery was made inasmuch as the delivery book had been signed and the railway receipts surrendered
It also appears from the evidence of Har Prashad that before the goods were actually removed Ishwara Nand used to take the permission of Har Prashad to remove them
This shows that though there might be token delivery in the form of signing the delivery book and surrendering the railway receipts actual delivery used to take place later and the removal of goods took place with the permission of Har Prashad
On this state of evidence the High Court was of the view that the so called delivery by signing delivery book and sur rendering the railway receipts was no delivery at all for till then the goods had not been unloaded
The unloading of goods is the duty of the railway and there can be no delivery by the railway till the railway has unloaded the goods
It is also clear from the evidence that even after token delivery had been made in the manner indicated above the consignee was not authorised to remove the goods from the wagons and that it was the railway which unloaded the wagons and it was thereafter that the consignee was permitted to remove such goods with his permission as stated by Har Prashad in his evidence
The High Court therefore held that there was no clear evidence that delivery of goods had been made over to the consignee in these cases
Further there was no evidence to show that the consignee could remove the goods from the wagons without further reference to the railway on the other hand it appeared that after such token delivery permission 590 of Har Prashad was taken for actual removal of goods
There fore the High Court came to the conclusion that real delivery had not been made when the fire took place on March 8 for the goods were till then in wagons and the railway was the only authority entitled to unload the same
Till they were unloaded by the railway they must be in the custody of the railway and no delivery could be said to have taken place merely by signing the delivery book and surrendering the railway receipts
We are of opinion that on the evidence the view taken by the High Court is correct
Though there was a token delivery as appears from the fact that railway receipts had been surrendered and the delivery book had been signed there was no real delivery by the railway to the consignee for the goods had not been unloaded and were still under the control and custody of the railway and Har Prashad s evidence is that his permission had still to be taken before the goods could be actually removed by the consignee
The contention that the delivery had been made to the consignee before March 8 1943 must therefore in the peculiar circumstances of this case fail
iii
It is next contended that damages should have been awarded at the rate of Rs 38 per bale which was tile contract price between the factory and the J C Mills
This contract was made in November 1942
The contract price is in our opinion no measure of damages to be awarded in a case like the present
It is well settled that it is the market price at the time the damage occurred which is the measure of damages to be awarded
It is not in dispute that the trial court has calculated damages on the basis of the market price prevalent on March 8
In these circumstances this contention must also be rejected
The next contention is that no interest could be awarded for the period before the suit on the amount of damages decreed
Legal position with respect to this is well settled  see Bengal Nagpur Railway Co Limited vs Ruttanki Ramji and Others 1
That decision of the Judicial Committee was relied upon by this Court in Seth Thawardas Pherumal vs The Union of India2
The same view was expressed by this Court in Union of India vs A L Rallia Ram3
In the absence of any usage or contract express or implied or of any provision of law to justify the award of interest it is not possible to award interest by way of damages
Also see 1 65 IA 66
2 3  591 recent decision of this Court in Union of India vs Watkins Mayer  Company1
In view of these decisions no interest could be awarded for the period upto the date of the suit and the decretal amount in the two suits will have to be reduced by the amount of such interest awarded
We now come to the additional point raised in Ishwara Nand s suit
It is urged that Ishwara Nand s consignment had reached Morar Road Railway Station on February 23 1943 and Ishwara Nand should have taken delivery within three days which is the period during which under the rules no wharfage is charged
The responsibility of the railway is Linder section 72 of the Indian Railways Act No 9 of 1890 and that responsibility cannot be cut down by any rule
It may be that the railway may not charge wharfage for three days and it is expected that a consignee would take away the goods within three days
It is however urged that the railway is a carrier and its responsibility as a carrier must come to an end within a reasonable time after the arrival of goods at the destination and thereafter there can be no responsibility whatsoever of the railway
It is further urged that three days during which the railway keeps goods without charging wharfage should be taken as reasonable time when its responsibility as a carrier ends thereafter it has no responsibility whatsoever
Under section 7 2 of the Indian Railways Act the responsibility of the railway administra tion for the loss destruction or deterioration of animals or goods delivered to the administration to be carried by railway is subject to the other provisions of the Act that of a bailee under sections 151 152 and 161 of the Indian Contract Act No 9 of 1872
This responsibility in our opinion continues until terminated in accordance with sections 55 and 56 of the Railways Act
The railway has framed rules in this connection which lay down that unclaimed goods are kept at the railway station to which they are booked for a period of not less than one month during which time the notice prescribed under section 56 of the Railways Act is issued if the owner of the goods or person entitled thereto is known
If delivery is not taken within this period the unclaimed goods are sent to the unclaimed goods office where if they are not of dangerous perishable or offensive character they are retained in the possession of the railway
Thereafter public sales by auction can be held of unclaimed goods which remain with the railway for over six months
This being the position under the rules so far as the application of sections 55 and 56 is concerned it follows that even though the res ponsibility of the railway as a carrier may come to an end within 1 C As
43  44 of 1963 decided on March 10 1965
592 a reasonable time after the goods have reached the destinationstation its responsibility as a warehouseman continues and that responsibility is also the same as that of a bailee
Reference in this connection is made to Chapman vs The Great Western Railway Company1
In that case what had happened was that certain goods had arrived on March 24 and 25
On the morning of March 27 a fire accidentally broke out and the goods were consumed by the fire
The consignor then sued the railway as common carrier on the ground that liability still subsisted when the goods were destroyed
The question in that case was whether the liability of the railways was still as common carrier on March 27 or was that of warehousemen
The question was of importance in English law for a common carrier under the English law is an insurer and is liable for the loss even though not arising from any default on his part while a warehouseman was only liable where there was want of proper care
It was held that the liability as a common carrier would come to end not immediately on the arrival of the goods at the destination but sometime must elapse between the arrival of goods and its delivery
This interval how ever must be reasonable and it was held in that case that reasonable time had elapsed when the fire broke out on March 27 and therefore the railway s responsibility was not that of a carrier but only as warehouseman
The position of law in India is slightly different from that in England for here the railway is only a bailee in the absence of any special contract and it is only when it is proved that the railway did not take such care of the goods 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 that the railway s responsibility arises
A warehouseman is also a bailee and therefore the railway will continue to be a warehouseman under the bailment even if its responsibility as a carrier after the lapse of a reasonable time after arrival of goods at the destination comes to an end
But in both cases the responsibility in India is the same namely that of a bailee and negligence has to be proved
In view of the rules to which we have already referred it is clear that the railway s responsibility as a warehouseman continues even if its responsibility as a carrier comes to end after the lapse of a reasonable time after the arrival of goods at the destination
The responsibility as a warehouseman can only come to end in the manner provided by sections 55 and 56 of the Railways Act and the Rules which have been framed and to which we have already referred as to the disposal of unclaimed goods
In the present case under the Rules the goods had to remain at Morar 1 1880 5QBD278
593 Road Railway Station for a period of one month after their arrival there and Ishwara Nand came to take delivery of them on March 10 well within that period
It may be that as he did not come within three days he has to pay wharfage or what is called demurrage in railway parlance but the responsibility of the railway as a warehouseman certainly continued till March 10 when Ishwara Nand went to take delivery of the goods
As it has been found that there had been negligence within the meaning of sections 151 and 152 of the Indian Contract Act the railway would be liable to make good the loss caused by the fire
The appeals therefore fail with this modification that the decretal amount would be reduced by the amount of interest awarded for the period before the date of each suit
The rest of the decree will stand
The appellant will pay the respondents  costs one set of hearing fee
In CA 60363 interest will be calculated from 6 8 62 in accordance with that order
Appeal dismissed and decree modified


Summary:
There was a fire at a railway station in which certain goods were destroyed
Two suits were filed claiming damage for loss of goods by the said fire
The first suit was filed by a factory which claimed to be owner of the goods as consignor
The other suit was filed by a consignee in whose favour the relevant documents were endorsed
The Union of India resisted both the suits
The trial court and the High Court concurrently held that the loss was due to the negligence of the Railways
The1 Union of India appealed to this Court
It was contended on behalf of the appellant  1 The suits as filed were not maintainable
2 In the first suit delivery of the goods had been made to the consignee and the High Court s finding to the contrary was wrong
3 Damages should have been awarded at the contract rat 
and not the market rate 4 Interest could not be awarded for the period before the suit on the amount of damages decreed
5 In the second suit notice had been given to the consignee that the consignment had arrived on February 23 1943
The consignee did not come to remove the goods till March 8 1943 when the fire broke out and the liability of the railway administration ceased after the lapse of reasonable time after arrival of the consignment at the railway administration
HELD i A railway receipt is a document of title to goods covered by it but from that alone it does not follow where the consignor and consignee are different that the consignee is necessarily the owner of the goods and the consignor in such circumstances can never he the owner of the goods
It is quite possible for the consignor to retain title in the goods himself while the consignment is booked in the name of another person
In the first of the present suits the risk remained with the consignor according to the agreement of the parties and it had not been proved that the consignor had parted with the property in the goods
Therefore the suit by he consignor was maintainable
586 D H In the second suit the railway receipt was endorsed in the consignees favour and the courts below had concurrently found that the consignee was the owner of the goods
There could therefore be no dispute about the maintainability of the second suit also
588 D ii Though there was a token delivery to the consignee in the first suit as appeared from the fact that the railway receipt had been sur 581 rendered and the delivery book had been signed there was no redelivery by the railway to the consignee
The goods had not been unloaded and were still under the control and custody of the railway and the evidence of the Assistant Goods Clerk was that his permission had still to be taken before the goods could be actually removed by the consignee
The contention in the first suit that the delivery had been made to the consignee before March 8 1943 therefore in the peculiar circumstances of the case had to fail
590 C D iii The High Court rightly calculated the damages on the basis of the on March 8 as it is well settled that it is the market price at lest be damage occurred which is the measure of the damages to be awarded
590 E F iv In the absence of any usage or contract express or implied or of any provision of law to justify the award of interest it is not possible to award interest by way of damages and therefore no interest should have been awarded in the present two suits up to the date of filing of either suit
591 A Bengal Nagpur Railway Co Ltd vs Ruttanji Rant  Ors 65 IA 66 Seth Thawardas Pherumal vs Union of India  Union of India v A L Rallia Ram  and Union of India V Watkins Mayer  Co C As
Nos 43 and 44 of 1963 dt
10 3 65 relied on
v Under section 72 of the Indian Railways Act the responsibility of the railway administration for the loss destruction or deterioration of animals or goods delivered to the administration to be carried by railway is subject to the other provisions of the Act that of a bailee under sections 151 152 and 161 of the Indian Contract Act
The responsibility continues until terminated in accordance with sq 55 and 56 of the Railways Act
591 E It may be that under the Rules framed by the Railways goods are kept at the railway station of destination only for one month and that demurrage has to be paid after three days of reaching the destination
But the responsibility of the railway is under section 72 of the Indian Railways Act and it cannot be cut down by any rule
Even if owing to the said Rules the responsibility of the railway as a carrier ends within a reasonable time after the goods have reached their destination station its responsibility as a warehouseman continues and that responsibility L the same at that of a bailee
592 E H Chapman vs The Great Western Railway Company 18805 QBD 278 distinguished
In the present case the consignee in the second suit claimed the goods well within the period of one month mentioned in the rules
The fact that he was liable to pay demurrage because he did not take delivery of the goods within three days did not relieve the railway of its respon sibility as warehouseman
As it had been concurrently found by the courts below that there had been negligence by the railway within the meaning of sections 151 and 152 of the Indian Contract Act the railway war liable to make good the loss caused by the fire
593 A B