Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Both the Courts below have found as a fact, on evidence that the negligence of the railway administration has been proved. As already stated, the plaintiff was entitled to rely on the evidence tendered on behalf of the defendants for the purpose of showing this. The Courts were also entitled to take into account the fact that material witnesses have not been examined by the defendants-railway administrations. The case of the defendants in the written statement was that water must have entered the wagon as a result of heavy rains and stormy wind. But when the plaintiff called upon the defendants to answer such interrogatories in this matter, the defendants denied knowledge as to whether when the consignment was being dealt with there were rains at any places. Even with regard to the type of wagon described in the written statement as water-tight the description was not adhered to in the interrogatories and with regard to the kind of wagon the interrogatories stated that the wagon "was not marked NWT" (non-water tight). Thus one gathers an impression that the railway administration was reluctant to place on record all material facts. As a matter of fact, since the plea was that water must have entered the wagon because of heavy rain one would have expected the railway administration at least to tender evidence to show that at particular station there was heavy rain and strong wind, in which case their defence that damage was caused by reasons beyond their control may have been justified. But in spite of doing that, relevant material is suppressed by the defendants. The material witnesses have also not been examined. As observed by the lower appellate Court, the defendants have not cared to examine any clerk or Station Master or train examiner from Ghorpadi or Tirora who would have been material witnesses and whose evidence would have been material to bring on record important material. Under such circumstances if the Courts have come to the conclusion that plaintiff has succeeded in proving that the defendants-railway administrations were negligent it is difficult to understand how that finding is open to challenge in this second appeal. That finding, therefore, must be accepted for the purposes of the decision of this appeal. In view of that finding, the appelants' contention that the judgment of the lower appellate Court is based on an erroneous construction of S. 74-C cannot also be accepted, because on merits it has been found that the plaintiff has discharged his burden of showing that the railway administrations were negligent.