P L D 1949 Lahore 141 (PLP)

I L R 42 All. 655 relied on ; A I R 1943 Lab. 244 1efe?red to. Ishwar Das Khanna for Petitioner Advocate‑General for Respondent. ACHHRU RAM, J.‑On 30th September, 1941, Messrs Bhagwan Das Benarsi Das, Bangle Merchants of Ferozabad, booked a consign ment, consisting of three baskets of bangles, to be delivered to them selves at Lahore. The consignment arrived at Lahore on 8th October 1941. On 18th November 1941 the railway receipt was presented by the plaintiffs when with the exception of six pairs of bangles the rest of the goods were found missing. The plaintiffs received delivery of the six pairs and on 15th July 1942 sued the Governor‑General in Council for recovery of Rs. 159/0/6 by way of compensation for non delivery of the remaining goods. The suit was dismissed by the judge, Small Cause Court, Lahore, on the ground that the plaintiffs not having asked for delivery within 24 hours after the arrival of the consignment could not hold the Railway administration liable for the loss by reason of the provisions of Rule 28 (2) of the Goods Tariff, Part I. The plain tiffs have come up in revision to this Court. Mr. Ishwar Das Khanna, the learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that Rule 28 (2), relied on by the trial Court is ultra vires and invalid. In support of this contention he relied on the judgment of Dhawan J. in A I R 1943 Lab.

244. In the case decided by Dhawan J. the delivery was asked for within four days of the arrival of the consignment. The learned judge of the Small Cause Court decreed the plaintiff's suit for damages, and in disallowing the petition for revision it was held that the rule exempting the Railway from liability in respect of any loss, destruction, deterioration or damage to such goods, arising from what ever causes, if the goods are not removed within the time allowed free of demurrage and wharfage, exceeded the rule‑making power of the Railway and was inconsistent with the liability imposed on the Railway under section 72 of the Railways Act. It further held that the bailee might contract himself out of the obligation under section 151, Contract Act, but it was not open to him to put an end to his obligation by him self which also was beyond his rule making power. In the present case it is not necessary for me to decide whether the view taken by Dhawan J. as regards the invalidity of the above men tioned rule is correct. Section 72 of the Railways Act deals only with the responsibility of a Railway administration for the loss, destruction or deterioration of goods delivered to such administration to be carried by rail. It has been held that liability of the Railway administration under the section remains in force only during period the goods are in transit and for a reasonable time after their arrival at the destination, for the consignee to take delivery thereof. In Bengal and North‑Western Railway v. Mul Chand (I L R 42 All. 655) it was held that a consignee of goods sent by rail is bound to take delivery thereof within a reason able time and that by his own laches he omits to do so, he cannot hold the Railway Company liable for any loss or damage which may accrue and that the mere fact of the Company charging demurrage does not make it liable as a warehouse‑man. In this case the consignment arrived at the destination on the 11th of May and delivery was asked for on 31st May when the goods were found to be damaged. The period of seven days allowed to expire was held not to be a reasonable time and the Railway administration was held not liable for the loss suffered. The following observations in' the judgment of Zafar Ali, J. at page 374 are worth quoting :‑‑ "It is not the business of the Railway administration to ; work as a warehouse‑man or a bailee for hire. Its proper function is that of a public carrier and it is only in connection with the performance of its duty as a carrier that it is held responsible as a bailee. The duty as a carrier is discharged on the arrival of the goods at their destination and it is not for the Railway administra tion to keep the goods after that as a warehouse‑man or a bailee for hire. The consignee, on the other hand, is expected to take delivery within a time fixed by the rules and if he neglects to do so, the Railway administration can claim demurrage and not hire. That being so, its liability to the consignee after the arrival of the goods is not the same as that of a warehouse‑ man or a bailee for hire." The plaintiffs in the present case admittedly allowed a period of about six weeks to expire before they asked for the delivery of the goods. If, in the meanwhile, the bulk of the goods had been lost, they cannot hold the Railway administration liable for the same, and this independently altogether of the provisions of Rule 28 (2) relied on by the learned trial judge. The liability of the Railway administration, according to the authorities mentioned above, remained in force only for the period during which the goods remained in transit and for a reasonable time after their arrival at the destination. After the expiry of such reasonable time there was no legal obligation imposed on the Railway administration to look after the goods or to account for theta. The plaintiffs' suit was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the learned trial Judge. This petition for revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances I make no order as to costs. K. M. A. Revision dismissed