Case: Messrs Juggilal Kamlapat Oil Mills Vs. Union of India and Others

the competent authority under the Calcutta Municipal Act. This in itself would be a sufficient answer for the failure to comply with the appellants request.7. The obligation of a bailee is set out in Section 151 of the Indian Contract Act. The section says that a bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, take of his own goods of the same bulk, quality and value as the goods bailed. Section 152 of that Act says that the bailee, in the absence of any special contract, is not responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the thing bailed, if he has taken the amount of care of it described in Section 151. A bailee is excused from returning the subject-matter of the bailment to the bailor or his agent where the subject-matter was taken away from him by authority of law exercised through regular and valid proceedings. (See Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 8, p. 308).8. The consignment in question was accepted by the railway authorities at Kanpur under the risk note in Form Z (Exhibit A). The material portion of Ex. A runs :I .... do hereby agree and undertake to hold the said Railway Administration harmless and free from all responsibility for any loss, destruction or deterioration of or damage to all or any of such consignment from any cause whatever, except upon proof that such loss, destruction, deterioration or damage arose from the misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration or its servants, provided that in the following cases :-(a) non-delivery of the whole of a consignment - where such non-delivery is not due to accidents to trains or to fire :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 it called upon to prove misconduct, but, if misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration or its servant cannot be fairly inferred from such evidence, the burden of proving such misconduct shall lie upon the consignor.9. So, if the loss, destruction or damage arose from the misconduct on the part of the railway administration or its servant, then the railway would be liable to pay damages. The question then is whether the loss or destruction of the oil resulted from any misconduct on the part of the railway administration.10. The non-delivery of the oil was not due to any accident to the train, nor was it due to fire or any other circumstance within the control of the railway. As already indicated, when the tank wagon reached Calcutta, the locks put by the appellant on it and the railway seal were found to remain intact. There was, therefore, no loss or destruction of the goods during transit between Kanpur and Calcutta. The inability of the railway administration to deliver the consignment at Calcutta was due to the fact that the tank wagon was seized by a competent authority and its contents destroyed under the orders of the High Court of Calcutta. The risk note lays down the rule of presumption on the question of misconduct. The respondents having proved that the wagon containing the mustard oil reached Calcutta safely, there is no room for inferring any misconduct on the part of the railway administration or its servants. The respondent cannot, therefore, be held liable under Exhibit A.11. Even under the general law, the respondent cannot be held liable for non-delivery of the consignment. The tank wagon was seized at Calcutta by the Food Inspector not because of any negligence of the railway authorities, but because the Health Officer of the Calcutta Corporation suspected that the oil was adulterated.12. In Exhibit 11 - the notice given under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, it was stated that since the tank wagon was not returned to Kanpur according to the direction of the appellant and the goods delivered to the appellant there, the respondents were liable in damages. On reading Ex. 11, it would seem that the main grievance of the appellant was that the respondents failed to return the tank wagon to Kanpur as requested by it any give delivery of the oil at Kanpur. In that notice, the appellant did not complain about the non-delivery of the oil at Calcutta or about tampering with the padlocks by the railway authorities.13. Mr. Goel, on behalf of the appellant, however, contended the strength of certain observations in Corpus Juris Secundum (See Vol. 8, p. 309) that a notice ought to have been given by the railway authorities to the appellant about the seizure of the tank wagon on September 6, 1949 or within a reasonable time and that the failure to do so would make the railway administration liable in damages.14. The object of the notice is to give an opportunity to the bailor to litigate his rights to property bailed. The appellant was a party to the proceedings before the Magistrate and the High Court. The High Court passed the order for destruction of the oil after finding that the tank wagon was lawfully seized by the Food Inspector and that the samples of oil were taken in accordance with law. We fail to see what prejudice was caused to the appellant by the failure to give the notice. There is also great force in the contention of the respondents that the appellant was aware of the seizure of the wagon on September 6, 1949 as the appellant was to take delivery of the oil on its arrival in Calcutta. Quite apart from this, the case that the railway authorities ought to have given notice to the appellant of the seizure of the tank wagon within a reasonable time and that the failure to give notice has prejudiced it was not pleaded either before the trial Court or the High Court.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]ry of the oil was not due to any accident to the train, nor was it due to fire or any other circumstance within the control of the railway. As already indicated, when the tank wagon reached Calcutta, the locks put by the appellant on it and the railway seal were found to remain intact. There was, therefore, no loss or destruction of the goods during transit between Kanpur and Calcutta. The inability of the railway administration to deliver the consignment at Calcutta was due to the fact that the tank wagon was seized by a competent authority and its contents destroyed under the orders of the High Court of Calcutta. The risk note lays down the rule of presumption on the question of misconduct. The respondents having proved that the wagon containing the mustard oil reached Calcutta safely, there is no room for inferring any misconduct on the part of the railway administration or its servants. The respondent cannot, therefore, be held liable under Exhibit A.11. Even under the general law, the respondent cannot be held liable forof the consignment. The tank wagon was seized at Calcutta by the Food Inspector not because of any negligence of the railway authorities, but because the Health Officer of the Calcutta Corporation suspected that the oil was adulterated.12. In Exhibit 11the notice given under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, it was stated that since the tank wagon was not returned to Kanpur according to the direction of the appellant and the goods delivered to the appellant there, the respondents were liable in damages. On reading Ex. 11, it would seem that the main grievance of the appellant was that the respondents failed to return the tank wagon to Kanpur as requested by it any give delivery of the oil at Kanpur. In that notice, the appellant did not complain about theof the oil at Calcutta or about tampering with the padlocks by the railway authorities.The object of the notice is to give an opportunity to the bailor to litigate his rights to property bailed. The appellant was a party to the proceedings before the Magistrate and the High Court. The High Court passed the order for destruction of the oil after finding that the tank wagon was lawfully seized by the Food Inspector and that the samples of oil were taken in accordance with law. We fail to see what prejudice was caused to the appellant by the failure to give the notice. There is also great force in the contention of the respondents that the appellant was aware of the seizure of the wagon on September 6, 1949 as the appellant was to take delivery of the oil on its arrival in Calcutta. Quite apart from this, the case that the railway authorities ought to have given notice to the appellant of the seizure of the tank wagon within a reasonable time and that the failure to give notice has prejudiced it was not pleaded either before the trial Court or the High Court.