Secy. Of State And Anr. vs Rup Ram-Audh Behari Lal And Anr. on 14 November, 1930
The number of bales was correctly delivered. What was missing was something out of the bales. The bale after something was missing would be the condition of that bale at the time of delivery and the railway company, under the protection granted to it under risk-note A, would not be responsible for that condition except upon proof that the loss was due to misconduct on the part of the railway administration or servants. This view was taken by a learned Judge of this Court in Bansi Ram v. B.N. W. Ry. Co., A.I.R. 1929 All. 124. The Judge of the trial Court has quoted this ruling but does not appear to have taken the trouble of reading the whole of it. The learned Judge there has specifically considered the question of an article or two slipping out of a bale or a bag by reason of imperfect or unsuitable packing. In the present case the law has not been correctly interpreted by the trial Court. The company was not liable to pay damages. The decree of the trial Court is set aside and the plaintiffs' suit dismissed with costs in both the Courts.