Law:

Section:

  Negligence-Railway Administration-Omission by staff to close flap doors properly as required under `Water and Wind Test' resulting in damage to, consignment though. defectively packed and consigned under Risk Note in Forms A and B-Omission, held, to be culpable neglect requiring compensation to be paid to sufferer Admission embodied in Risk Note, nevertheless can be conformed to Goods Tariff Rules.   Chief Executive Officer Rangpur v. Federation of Pakistan (1955)7 D L R 611 fol.   Negligence-Negligence of Railway Servant-when amounts to misconduct.   If a Railway servant is guilty of some omission or act that is inconsistent with his conduct as such i.e., omits to do something that he is required to do or does something that he should not do and in consequence of such omission or act a consignment made over to the Railway suffers loss, damage etc., that, no matter whether intentional or unintentional, is culpable or gross neglig ence which amounts to misconduct. JUDGMENT   SIKANDAR ALI, J.----This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of damages and the plaintiff is the appellant.   The plaintiff Company delivered a consignment of 55 bales of cotton yarn, each balecontaining 40 bundles, to the defendant Railway Administration at Chittagong on 26-5-1956 under Railway Receipt No. 886588 of date for carriage and delivery to him at Narayanganj. On its arrival at the destination the consignment was found badly damaged by damp and rain water due to gross negligence of the Railway Administration and on assessment survey made by Sinclaire Murray (Pakistan) Ltd. after due correspondence with the defendant Administration the t loss thus caused was estimated at Rs. 6,750-7-0. Open delivery was accordingly taken under proper damage certificate granted by the appropriate authority but the loss was not made good in spite of demands. In the circumstances, the present suit was instituted on the expiry of the prescribed period after due service of the requisite notices under section 77 of the Railway Act and section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.   The defendant Railway Administration in contesting the suit did not question…