Railways Not Liable For Short Delivery Of Consignment Booked At Owner's Risk Unless It Counted Or Weighed Goods: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the Railways cannot be held liable for the short delivery of a consignment booked at the "owner's risk" rate unless it had itself counted or weighed the goods before transportation, thereby assuming a duty of care over the quantity entrusted to it.A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed an appeal filed by M/s Bajaj Trading Company, which sought compensation for the alleged shortage of 1,742 bags of salt transported from Gujarat to Assam. The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Railway Claims Tribunal and the Gauhati High Court rejecting the claim.The dispute arose after the appellant booked 40,444 bags of salt from Chirai Junction in Gujarat to Dharmanagar in Assam in November 2009. On arrival, only 38,702 bags were allegedly delivered. Although the Railways issued a shortage certificate, it disputed liability on the ground that the consignment had been booked at the owner's risk rate and carried a "said to contain" endorsement, indicating that railway staff had not verified the quantity loaded.The appellant argued that the Railways remained bound by the general responsibility imposed under Section 93 of the Railways Act, 1989, and that railway officials ought to have supervised the loading process. It also contended that the "said to contain" endorsement could not absolve the Railways of liability.Rejecting these submissions, the Court held that Section 97 of the Railways Act, which governs consignments carried at the owner's risk rate, overrides the general liability under Section 93. Consequently, the Railways can be made liable only upon proof of negligence or misconduct on its part.The Bench held that such negligence could arise only if railway authorities had verified the quantity of goods before transit."Had they, at any stage been involved in the noting, counting or weighing of goods, thereby being actively aware of the amount being transported by them, then, it could be said that they had duty to ensure that the total amount that they have counted or weighed, was the amount they ought to safely transit to the end destination. This was not the case," the Court observed.The Court pointed out that under the proviso to Section 65(2) of the Railways Act, where railway employees do not verify the number of packages and a corresponding endorsement is made in the railway receipt, the burden of proving the quantity rests on the consignor, consignee or endorsee.It found that the appellant had failed to discharge this burden by producing documentary evidence showing the quantity of salt procured, processed and dispatched."The appellant has not provided any documents to show that a particular number of bags were procured and processed and then were being further sent for iodisation. In other words, the burden of proof as per the proviso to Section 65(2) was not discharged," the Court observed.Holding that no negligence on the part of the Railways had been established, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.HeadnoteRailways Act, 1989 – Section 65(2) Proviso, Section 93, and Section 97 – Shortage of Consignment – Goods carried at Owner's Risk Rate – "Said to contain" Remark – Burden of Proof and Liability for Negligence – Exclusion of General Liability - Interpretation of Non-Obstante Clause in Section 97 - The Supreme Court held that the non-obstante clause contained in Section 97 of the Railways Act, 1989, explicitly overrides and excludes the general obligations cast on the Railway Administration under Section 93 of the Act - Where goods are booked under the "owner's risk" category, the Railway Administration cannot be held responsible for any loss, destruction, damage, deterioration, or non-delivery in transit unless there is clear proof that the same was due to negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of its servants - Burden of Proof under Section 65(2) Proviso: In cases where a consignment is loaded in a wagon-load or train-load directly by the consignor's employees without supervision or checking by an authorized railway servant, and a "said to contain" remark is endorsed on the Railway Receipt, the statutory burden of proving the actual weight or number of packages dispatched lies squarely on the consignor, consignee, or endorsee - Duty of Care and Negligence: For establishing negligence on the part of the Railway Authorities under Section 97, a pre-existing duty of care must be established - If the Railways were never actively involved in the noting, counting, or weighing of the goods at the booking stage, they cannot be held negligent for an alleged shortage at the destination point unless the initial quantity loaded is conclusively proved by the claimant - Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the appellant failed to discharge the statutory burden of proof under the proviso to Section 65(2) to substantiate the initial number of bags loaded. [Relied on Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, (2025) 2...

Railways Not Liable For Short Delivery Of Consignment Booked At Owner's Risk Unless It Counted Or Weighed Goods: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Railways Not Liable For Short Delivery Of Consignment Booked At Owner's Risk Unless It Counted Or Weighed Goods: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers