Case: Messrs Jeetmal Ram Gopal Vs. Union of India

On August 28, 1948, the appellants booked a consignment of 176 mds. 6 seers of ghee in 357 tins from railway station Hathras Killah to Kanpur Central on East India Railway under R.R. No. 721200. At the destination station, the consignment was found to be short by 37 mds. 24 seers 4 ch. of ghee. The appellant filed a suit against the railway administration for a decree for Rs. 10, 965.50 P. as damages for loss suffered by them on account of short delivery in the consignment. The appellant submitted that the loss was due to the negligence and misconduct of the employees of the railway administration. The suit was defended by Union of India. It was contended that the goods had not been properly packed and on that account the goods were booked at owners risk under railway risk note in Form A and that the Railway Administration and its employees were not guilty of negligence or misconduct in dealing with the consignment. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the execution of the railway risk note in Form A was not proved, and the railway being a bailee of the goods consigned was liable to make good in loss suffered by the appellants. In appeal against the decree, the High Court of Allahabad reversed the decree and dismissed the appellants suit. With certificate granted by the High Court, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants.

Court's reasoning:
We do not think there is any substance in the contention raised by Mr. Gupta that these documents were not properly exhibited in the Court of the first instance. The risk note was tendered in evidence by the railway administration and there is an endorsement of the Civil Judge, Aligarh directing that the document be exhibited. Once the document which is not otherwise inadmissible is admitted in evidence, and is exhibited, it is not open to the appellate Court to allow a contention to be raised as of its proper proof. The risk note was admitted without any objection. The risk note form is statutory and needs no formal proofBy this risk note the appellants had clearly undertaken that in respect of the consignment of ghee the railway administration will be free from all liability for the condition in which the goods may be delivered to the consignee at the destination, unless it be proved that the loss arose from misconduct on the part of the railway administration. The burden of proof of misconduct under the terms of the risk note clearly lay upon the appellantsBut this was clearly hearsay. The witness had no personal knowledgeIt could not be said that on that account the protection of the risk note in Form "A" came to an end. In the absence of any clear evidence to prove that by reason of the wagon being taken to Jamuhi and then to the grain shop siding, then back to Jamuhi and finally to the Kanpur Central Station, any damage was caused, the claim made by the appellants for damages arising from misconduct of the railway administration is not proved.