| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1959 SLG 4431 = 1959 SLD 4431 = 1959 PLD 683 |
WEST PAKISTAN, KARACHI
Revision Application No. 43 of 1950, decided on 24th August 1959.
Presented By: Constantine, J
S. M. Sadiq for Applicant. Asif A. Zahidi for
Respondent.
Revision Application No. 43 of 1950, decided on 24th August 1959.
Presented By: Constantine, J
S. M. Sadiq for Applicant. Asif A. Zahidi for
Respondent.
MESSRS DALMIA-CEMENT Co., LTD.-Applicant
VERSUS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN-Opponent
Law: Railways Act (IX of 1890)
Section: 72,76,80
Railways Act (IX of 1890), Ss. 72, 76 & 80-Consignment booked in Pakistan for transmission to India-Loss of goods in India--Consignor proving loss in transit-Railways under obligation to prove absence of negligence on their part-Pakistan Railway not proving that Indian Railway was not negligent-Suit decreed. Date of hearing: 24th August 1959. JUDGMENT The applicants in revision sued the Federation of Pakistan in the Small Causes Court for non-delivery of goods delivered to the N. W. Railway for transmission to a destination to India. The N. W. Railway, so the learned Judge found, had transferred to goods to wagons on the Jodhpur Railway at Mirpurkhas and the wagons had been despatched across the border. This finding has not been challenged by Mr. Sadiq and the position, therefore, is that the loss of goods, if it occurred at all, occurred not in Pakistan, but in India. There had been no issue whether non-delivery of the goods was proved or not, and hence I had remanded the case to the Small Causes Court for a finding on this issue. That issue has now been found in favour of the applicant, and Mr. Asif Zaidi for the Railway has not attacked that finding. The applicant, therefore, contends that under section 80, Railways Act, the N. W. Railway is liable. This section, so far as is material, provides- "Notwithstanding anything in any agreement purporting to limit the liability of a railway administration with respect to traffic while on the railway of another administration a suit for compensation for loss of . . . . goods where . . . . goods were booked through over the railways of two or more railway administrations, may be brought either against the railway administration to which the goods were delivered by the consignor thereof, . . . . . . or against the railway administration on which railway the loss . . . . . occurred." It is not disputed that the goods had been booked through over the two Railways. Mr. Zaidi contends that despite this section the responsibility of the railway is merely that of a bailee under the Contract Act, and,…