Statutory liability for loss of goods persists unless Railways proves exercise of reasonable foresight and care.

The appellant booked a consignment of 832 bags of turmeric and black pepper from Erode to Delhi-Kishanganj via Railway Receipt dated 21.10.2005

On 28.10.2005, the train met with an accident between AXR and BTTR stations due to heavy rainfall and the subsequent breaching of three irrigation tanks, causing a wagon to capsize

Upon delivery on 19.11.2005, the Railways issued a Shortage Certificate and Assessment Report confirming that 422 bags were short-delivered and 410 bags were delivered in a damaged/deteriorated condition

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the appellant's claim, holding that the accident was an "act of God" and that the Railways were not liable because the maintenance of the breached tanks fell under the State Irrigation Department

1. Whether the damage and short-delivery were caused by an "act of God" under Section 93(a) of the Railways Act, 1989, thereby exempting the Railways from liability

2. Whether the Railways exercised reasonable foresight and care in the carriage of goods as required by the proviso to Section 93

3. Whether the Railways were entitled to protection under Sections 65, 93(f), and 98 of the Act regarding packing conditions and "said to contain" bookings

Section 93 of the Railways Act, 1989, which imposes a statutory strict liability on the Railway Administration as an insurer of goods, subject to specific exceptions such as an "act of God", qualified by a proviso requiring the Railways to prove the exercise of "reasonable foresight and care"

Precedent in K.R. Rajamanickam Chettiar v. Union of India, which established that the Railways cannot escape liability by merely pointing to an exception if they failed to use reasonable care

Definition of "act of God" from Nugent v. Smith as a direct act of nature that could not have been foreseen by any amount of ability or resisted by human skill

The Court found that the Tribunal erred in granting the Railways immunity based on the Irrigation Department's negligence; Section 93 requires the Railways, as professional carriers, to foresee risks beyond those apparent to a layman, including the impact of prolonged rainfall on nearby infrastructure

The evidence showed that heavy rain had persisted for 48 hours prior to the accident; however, the Railways failed to prove they performed enhanced inspections or coordinated with the Irrigation Department

The Court observed that the driver only reacted when he saw fallen trees and water in real-time, which does not constitute "reasonable foresight", and the Railways offered no evidence of measures taken to protect the consignment after the accident

Regarding packing deficiencies under Sections 65 and 98, the Court noted that the Railways failed to prove any causal link between the packing and the damage caused by a capsized wagon

The Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and directed the Railways to pay compensation of Rs. 22,18,906 along with simple interest at 12% per annum from 25.11.2005 until realization