TABLE OF CONTEXT:

1. Index Of Authorities

i. List of Abbrivation

ii. Table of Cases

iii. Statutes and Citation

iv. Books and Study Material

2. Statement Of Juridiction

3. Facts Of The Cases

4. Argument Made

5. Advanced Argument Made

6. Prayer

On behalf of respondent
1
 LIST OF ABBRIVIATION:

1. First Appeal - (A.S.)

2. Second Appeal - (S.A.)
3. Writ Appeal - (W.A.)
4. Writ Petition - (W.P.)
5. Consumer protection Act - (CpA)
6. All India Ranking - (AIR)
7. Honourable- (HON’BLE)

TABLES OF CASES AND CITATION’S REFFERED:

Cases:

1. Gopal Singh v. Punjab National Bank AIR 1976 Del 115,

2. Calcutta credit corporation ltd v. Prince Peter of Greece AIR 1964 Cal 374,

Equivalent Citation:
1963 AIR 422, 1963 SCR (2) 702, AIR 1963 SUPREME COURT 422, 1963 ALL. L. J. 101, 1963 SCD 89, 1963 2 SCR 702, 1963
2 SCJ 183

STATUTES REFFERED:
1. section 148 of ICA,1872
2. secton 151 of ICA,1872
3. Section 152 of ICA,1872
4. Section 72 of Indian Railway Act,1989

BOOKS AND STUDY MATERIALS REFFERED:

1. Indian Railway Act,1989

2. The Indian Contract Act, 1872
3. Indiankanoon.com
4. Casemine.com

On behalf of respondent
2
 STATEMENTS OF JURISDICTION:

1. The Respondent is appearing before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India ,HON’BLE , J.S. DAYAL, RAGHUBAR KAPUR,
J.S. J.L. GUPTA, J.S. K.C. DAS on suo moto motion(ON ITS OWN MOTION-court gives order without getting
permisssion of the parties.)under Article 32 of the Constitution.

2. ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION: Right to Constitutional Remedies by which individual have right to approach
Supreme Court.

3. Suit done on SEC :151, of ICA,1872 & , 72 of ICA,1872 ,Negligence or Breach of duty to take care.

On behalf of respondent
3
 STATEMENTS OF FACTS:

1. M/s. Radha Ram Sohan Lal of Calcutta consigned certain goods to self at Delhi of the consignment, certain
articles .

2. Which were not delivered to M/s. Udho Ram & Sons, the plaintiffs, in whose favour the railway receipt had been
endorsed by the consigner.

3. The only dispute between the parties is whether the loss of goods in transit between Calcutta and Delhi was due
to the misconduct and negligence of the railways or not.

4. The Union of India, the defendant, contended that the loss occurred due to circurnstances beyond the control of
the railway administration.

5. The trial Court found that the railway wagon in which the consignment was loaded had been thereafter properly
rivetted and sealed at Howrah.

6. one door of the wagon were found open when the train which left Howrah at 1-30 a.m., on October 1, 1949,
reached Chandanpur Station at 3-15 a.m., the same night,

7. The train having stopped for 15 minutes at the Howrah-Burdwan Link for the home signal at 2-05 a. m.

8. The railway protection police escorted the train, but does not succeed.

9. The trial court, however, found that the precaution taken of posting railway protection police in a goods train.

10. Amounted to the railways taking proper care of the goods delivered to them as carriers and that therefore the
railways were not guilty of any negligence and misconduct.

11. It was of the view that the railway protection police which usually travelled in the guards van, could not possibly
know what was happening in the wagons at the other end or in the middle of the train during the journey. (It
therefore dismissed the suit.)

12. On appeal, the High Court held the railways responsible for the loss which, in its view, was due to its negligence
and misconduct.

13. Frequent thefts in running trains between Howrah and Chandanpur, Amounted to the railways taking proper care
of the goods delivered to them as carriers and that therefore the railways were not guilty of any negligence and
misconduct.

On behalf of respondent
4
14. It therefore reversed the decree of the trial court and decreed the plaintiffs suit for the amount of loss held
suffered by the plaintiffs.

15. Assistant Station Master at Chandanpur Railway Station, stated in cross examination that he did not remember from
memory the events of the occurrence at Chandanpur station on October 1st, 1949,.

16. The wagon in which the plaintiffs goods were, was in the centre of the train. It was the 29th carriage from the other
end.

17. We cannot accept the contention that the railway protection police could not have moved out of the guard's van
due to the uncertainly of the stoppage of the train at the signal.

18. It was the job of its members to get down on every stoppage of the train and to keep an eye at the various wagons,
as best as they could.

19. There was no evidence as to what was the strength of the railway protection ,police or to show that it did stir out of
the train see that the wagons were not interfered with.

20. Therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.

On behalf of respondent
5
 ISSUE RAISED:

1. Whether the Railway not perform its duty to take care.

2. Whether there is any neglegence of act.

3. Is Railway is involved in this theft.

4. Why Railway truly liable for loss suffered by plaintiff.

5. Why don’t Police make any check up round during hault.

6. Fault done by security fall under course of Railway.

On behalf of respondent
6
 ARGUMENT MADE:

1. The only dispute between the parties is the loss of goods in transit between Calcutta and Delhi was due to the
misconduct and negligence of the railways .

2. M/s. Udho Ram & Sons, the plaintiffs, in whose favour the railway receipt had been endorsed by the consigner.

3. The train having stopped for 15 minutes at the Howrah-Burdwan Link for the home signal at 2-05 a. m. and the
railway protection police not escorted the train.

4. The High Court accepted these findings and there is clear negligence of Railway.

5. Section 148 describes what is bailment, bailor(Plaintiff),bailee(Union of India)& 151 duty of bailee to take goods
bailed(which mean bailee is responsible any loss occured in goods bailed).

6. Railway did not take proper care of goods under his course of act which is not follow of Section 151 of ICA,1872,same
as Indian Railway Act,1989 Section 72.

7. In fact, the defendants did not allege in their written statement that any railway protection police escorted the train
but, it is implied duty to protect goods bailed .

8. Assistant Station Master at Chandanpur Railway Station, stated in cross examination that he did not remember from
memory the events of the occurrence at Chandanpur station on October 1st, 1949,.

9. Needless to say that an ordinary person traveling in a train would be particular is keeping an eye on his goods
especially when the train stops.

10. It is not therefore imposing a higher standard of care on the railway administration when it is said that its staff, and
especially the railway protection police specially deputed for the purpose of seeing that no loss takes place to the
goods, should get down from the wagon and keep an eye on the wagons in the train in order to see that no
unauthorized person gets at the goods.

11. It may be true that any precautions taken may not be always successful against the loss in transit on account of
theft,but in the present case there is no evidence with respect to the extent of the precautions taken and with respect
to what the railway protection police itself did at the place where the train had to stop.

On behalf of respondent
7
 ADVANCED ARGUMENT MADE:

1. 1. According to Section 151 of ICA,1872& Section 72 of Indian Railway Act,1989 ,Railway have to took proper take
care of goods bailed ,under his course , not get done ,by Railway Management,Railway Police .

2. Act happen midway can be stopped but officers on site ,not take any step to figure it out,falls negligent behaviour of
Railway.

3. Even One Door also remained open when train left station.

4. There is no evidence that shows Railway take proper take care of goods.

5. The railway protection police specially deputed for the purpose of seeing that no loss takes place to the goods,
should get down from the wagon and keep an eye on the wagons in the train in order to see that no unauthorized
person gets at the goods.

6. Bailee has duty to delivered goods in regular condition except contract in contrary , Railway duty in all way to
delivered goods to its destination(As, payment of delivery is fully done,given in receipt on name of respondent).

On behalf of respondent
8
 PRAYER:

Wherefore in the light of facts stated ,issue raised,arguments ,advanced arguments and
authorities cited ,it is most humbly prayed and implored before the HON’BLE Court it may be
graciously pleased to adjudge and declare that.

1.. Railway does not takes all effective steps to avoid respondent loss ,as duty by security is not fulfilled.
2. Although security police it not asked by plaintiff,but it is implied in contract of bailment under section 151 of
ICA,1872
3. Requested HON’BLE Court loss incured by respondent must by repay,so loss will be sustained.
4. HON’BLE Court Please, give cost and damages to respondent for lossof goods bailed.

OR

Any other order as the HON’BLE Court deems fit in the intrest of equity,justiceand good
concience.

All of which is humbly and respectfully submitted.

Counsels for Respondents.

On behalf of respondent
9