Case: Governor General In Council Vs. Musaddi Lal

1. On January 30, 1943, Bhola Nath Sambhu Ram as agent of the respondent L. Musaddilal delivered a bale of cloth to the railway administration E. I. Rly. at Agra railway station for carriage by railway to the Chola Station in the E. I. Rly. The consignment was accepted by the railway administration and a railway receipt was issued in the name of the consignor Bhola Nath Sambhu Ram. Bhola Nath Sambhu Ram endorsed the railway receipt in favour of the respondent and sent it by post to the respondent. The bale of cloth did not reach Chola, and the railway administration was unable despite efforts to trace it. There was correspondence between the railway administration and the respondent about the consignment. Failing to obtain satisfaction for the loss suffered by him, the respondent served a composite notice under S. 77 of the Indian Railways Act and S. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code on December 7, 1943 and thereafter on May 18, 1944, filed suit No. 283 of 1944 in the court of the II Munsif, Bulandshahr, for a decree for Rs. 782-3-6 being the "price of the bale" and Rs. 200 for loss on account of non delivery. The railway administration resisted the claim on the pleas among others that the suit was not maintainable without an effective notice under S. 77 of the Railways Act and that the suit was barred because at the date of the institution of the suit, the period of limitation prescribed by Art. 31of the Limitation Act had expired. The trial court decreed the suit. In appeal, the Additional Civil Judge, Bulandshahr, reversed the decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit. A Full Bench of the High Court of Allahabad reversed the decree passed by the first appellate court and restored the decree of the trial court. With certificate of fitness under Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution, this appeal has been preferred by the Union of India.

Reasoning: The railway administration being a bailee of the goods delivered for carriage to it is therefore a bailee during the period when the goods remain in its custody for the purpose and in the course of carriage and for the purpose of delivery after the goods are carried to the destination. But the quantum of care which the railway administration is required to take is that care which it would take having regard to the bulk, quality and value of its own similarThe view expressed to the contrary in the Allahabad High Court in Governor-General in Council v. Mahabir Ram ILR (1953) 1 All 64: (AIR 1952 All 891  ) (FB) and by the Patna High Court in Jais Ram Ramrekha Das v. G. I. P. Railway. ILR 8 Pat 545: (AIR 1929 Pat 109  ), is in our judgment erroneous.