RAM LABHAYA J.: This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Addl. Sub-Judge, Upper Assam Districts, dated 16-2-1951, by which plaintiff's suit was dis­missed against all the defendants with costs. (2) The suit was for recovery of R;;, 7,313/lQ/- against Messrs. River Steam Navigalioa Company Limited (defendant No. 1), Messrs. India General Navigation and Railway Company, Limited (defendant No. 2) and the Dominion of India (de­fendant No. 3}. The claim was based on non-deli­very of a part of the consignment which was booked on 2-7-1947 at Dibrugarh. The consignment con­sisted of 100 bags of Brass scrap. It was delivered, at the Steamer Ghat at Dibrugarh under the control and management of defendants 1 and 2 for carriage to Moradabad Railway Station on East Indian Railway under invoice No. 15, R/46. The consignment: did not reach the destination within a reasonable period of time. The plaintiff served notices on defendant I and 2 through his pleader. ' He was told in reply-that the consignment had been handed over by the defendants to the B. A. Railway at Amingaora cm 10-7-1947 under a clear receipt and this exonerated the defendants completely from all responsibility for any loss that the plaintiff may have suffered on ac­count of the loss of or damage to the consignment or even on account of its non-delivery. Later' twenty-six bags were delivered at destination. Tie claim is for price of the undelivered part of the consignment. Refund of freight and octroi and also a sum of Rs. 1554/- on account of loss of profit were also claimed. (3) Defendants 1 and 2 admitted that they had received the consignment but pleaded that it was handed over to the B. A. Railway at Amingaon and they had a clear receipt for it. Defendant 3 also resisted the suit. The main defence set up was that statutory notices had not been served on the defendant. (4) The trial Judge framed some ten issues in the case. We are concerned at this stage only with the first three issues, which are as follows: "1. Whether the plaintiff has any cause of ac­tion against defendants or any one or more of them? 2. Whether the consignment in suit was mad' over by defendants 1 and 2 to the then B. & A Railway in full and under clear receipt as alleged by them? 3. Whether the plaintiff has any cause of ac­tion against defendants or any one or more of them? 2. Whether the consignment in suit was mad' over by defendants 1 and 2 to the then B. & A Railway in full and under clear receipt as alleged by them? 3. If so, are the defendants 1 and 2 liable in this suit? The learned Additional Subordinate Judge found that the consignment in question was booked under for­warding note Ex. A. Clause 11 of the conditions of the forwarding note was binding on the plaintiff Under this clause defendants 1 and 2 ceased to be responsible as common carriers beyond their own transport system when they handed over the consignment to the Railway at Amingaon. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the correct­ness of this decision on three grounds "(1) that the forwarding note Ex. A does not re­late to the consignment in question. It has been altered in material parts in order that it may be connected with the consignment in question. (2) that the defendants have failed to' prove that the consignment was handed over by them to the Railway at Amingaon. (3) that even if the consignment was handed over to the Railway at Amingaon, the defendants are not absolved from responsibility as common carriers beyond Amingaon. Their responsibility continued upto the delivery of the consignment at destination, notwithstanding clause 11 of the conditions under which the consignment was book­ed. Mr. Ghose's contention is that this clause is void because of its repugnancy to the provisions con­tained in sections 6 and 8 of the Carriers Act." (5) The first question in the case is whether the forwarding note Ext. A on which defendants have relied, does not really relate to the consign­ment in question. Defendants have examined Ananda Nath Sarma, defence witness No. 1 for prov­ing the forwarding note Ex. A. He deposed that he was working as booking clerk at Dibrugarh-Ghat on 2-7-1947, that Ext. A was the forwarding note of R/R. No. 46, Invoice No. 15 dated 2-7-1947, which related to the consignment in question. The ' Agarwalla Trading Company, the plaintiff was the consignor. It was booked to Moradabad on the E. I. Railway. He deposed also to the procedure for booking. A was the forwarding note of R/R. No. 46, Invoice No. 15 dated 2-7-1947, which related to the consignment in question. The ' Agarwalla Trading Company, the plaintiff was the consignor. It was booked to Moradabad on the E. I. Railway. He deposed also to the procedure for booking. The forwarding note according to him is first pre­sented to the Joint Agents who send it to the Sub-Agent and Sub-Agent keeps the consignment with the forwarding note with 'Sukhani' (receiving clerk) who then marks the consignment and gets it weighed in presence of the man who takes the goods for transshipment. The witness admitted that Ex. A was not filled in his presence and he had not seen the person who had executed it before it was brought to the Joint Agents. He however stated that on receiving the for­warding note in question (Ex. A) he entered the freight noted therein. The figures noted in the columns intended for weight and the freight (to1 pay) were in his hands. There are no alterations, in die entries in these columns. The total freight is Rs. 600/6/-. It is on the basis of the forwarding note that the invoice, R/R. and junction invoice are prepared. The copies were prepared by the witness on carbon paper according to usual procedure. The pencil copy is the invoice. The second carbon copy is called R/R and the third carbon copy is called junction receipt. The invoice is sent to the receiving clerk of the Steamer Company which carries the goods. The R/R is given to the consignor or his agent. The junction receipt is sent through post to the first junction at which the consignment is diverted. This process would show that it is not possible to change the document after the goods have been booked. It is true that the forwarding note is dated 20-5-1947. The consignment was booked on 2nd July, long after this date. The destination originally was shown as Hathras. It was altered to Morada­bad presumably on the day of the booking. There is an alteration also in the number of bags. Origi­nally the figure was 200. It has been altered to 100. The forwarding note purports to have been executed by one K. C. Sen on behalf of Agarwalla Trading Company. The destination originally was shown as Hathras. It was altered to Morada­bad presumably on the day of the booking. There is an alteration also in the number of bags. Origi­nally the figure was 200. It has been altered to 100. The forwarding note purports to have been executed by one K. C. Sen on behalf of Agarwalla Trading Company. In the remarks column it is stated that it is certified that there was no live or dangerous ammunition in the consignment and that it was to be booked as scrap brass. (6) There is absolutely no reason to doubt the correctness of the statement made by the witness. What appears to have happened is that a forward­ing note which was filled in on 20-5-1947 for a larger consignment meant for Hathras, was utilised for this consignment on 2nd July. The alterations were made at the time or before booking and there is nothing in the document to suggest that any alter­ation was made after 2nd July. It was not possible to do so as it is on the basis of the forward­ing note that invoice, the R/R and the junction re­ceipt are prepared. The freight, the weight and other entries have remained unaltered. (7) Plaintiff alone appeared on his own behalf, His statement was that he sent Bhagat Singh, a Punjabi, for the consignment to be booked at Dibrugarh Ghat via Jagannathghat to Moradabad. He had no employee of the name of K. C. Sen. This state­ment fails to carry conviction. In cross examination the witness had to admit that he used to manage the affairs of Mangal Chand Ram Kumar till November 1950. He knew Shri Jogesh Sen, Advocate but did not know if his brother K. C. Sen was an employee of the firm he was managing. He could not say if K. C. Sen was an employee of that firm in 1947'. The reply is obviously evasive. He could not be unaware of the fact whether K. C. Sen was working for that firm, considering that he himself was in charge of the management of that firm. He has not produced Bhagat Singh through whom he states he got the consignment booked. He himself did not go for booking. There is thus no rebuttal worth the name from his side of the evi­dence produced by the defendants which is support­ed by the document in question. He has not produced Bhagat Singh through whom he states he got the consignment booked. He himself did not go for booking. There is thus no rebuttal worth the name from his side of the evi­dence produced by the defendants which is support­ed by the document in question. (8) Plaintiff admitted that he was keeping ac­counts of the consignments sent by him and in his account book the names of persons who were deput­ed to book the consignments were shown. He did not produce the book which contained the relevant entries. Quite apart from this significant omission, it seems obvious that there was no point in altering or utilising any other forwarding note for the pur­poses of defence. It is not the plaintiff's case that any consignment could be booked without a forward­ing note. The defendants have got one form of for­warding note which is utilised whenever a consign­ment is booked. Whether this particular form or any other form is used, condition 11 would be the same. So there was no point in changing die forward­ing note that related to this particular consignment. The learned counsel has not even suggested that in 1947 when the consignment was booked, defendants were having a different forwarding note or the con­ditions of the forwarding note were different from the conditions of the forwarding note on which de­fendants have placed reliance. It is therefore clear that the forwarding note Ex. A in this case related to the consignment in question as found by the court below. (9) There can be no manner of doubt that the consignment was handed over to the railway at Amingaon. This fact is deposed to by witness No. 2 of the defendants. He has produced the register on which he obtained the receipt. There is reliable documentary evidence in support of the fact that the consignment was received by the B. A. Railway at Amingaon. There is no rebuttal of his testimony from the plaintiff's side. He did not even state in his deposition that the consignment was not received by the B. A. Rail­way. If it was not received, it was open to the plaintiff to prove this fact by summoning officers of the Railway department to depose to this fact. The evidence of defendants thus remains unrebutted and there is absolutely no reason to discard it. If it was not received, it was open to the plaintiff to prove this fact by summoning officers of the Railway department to depose to this fact. The evidence of defendants thus remains unrebutted and there is absolutely no reason to discard it. The learned Judge has relied on it and we agree in the finding that the consignment was handed over to the Railway at Amingaon as pleaded by the defen­dants. The finding receives support from the fact that 26 bags out of the consignment were delivered at destination. The rest of the seventy-four bags were undoubtedly not delivered and the question now is whether under clause 11 of the conditions of the forwarding note defendants stand exonerated from liability. Clause 11 provides as follows: ''The company undertake to carry goods over their own transport system only. Where goods are accepted by the Company for carriage beyond their own transport system and where goods are either wholly or partly carried by other carrying adminis­trations in the matter of carriage beyond the Com­pany's own transport system the Company act mere­ly as agents for such other carrying administration. 1 have already come to the conclusion that the for­warding note Ex. A relates to the consignment in question. The conditions of the forwarding note are binding on the parties and plaintiff is therefore bound by clause 11. (10) The provision of clause 11 is that the de­fendants would be liable as common carriers on their own transport system. Beyond that they merely act as agents of the other administrations which handle the goods. The case of the defendants is that having delivered the goods to the railway administration they were absolved of all responsibility as carriers, for, after delivery of the consignment to the rail­way they were acting merely as agents of the rail­way administrations that carried the goods. They were neither carriers nor were they the principal contracting parties and the liability if any, could be enforced only against the principles. Clause 11 of the terms of the forwarding note was interpreted in - 'Indian General Navigation and Railway Co. Ltd. v. Krishna Kanta Das', AIR 1949 Assam 25 (A). I was a party to this decision. They were neither carriers nor were they the principal contracting parties and the liability if any, could be enforced only against the principles. Clause 11 of the terms of the forwarding note was interpreted in - 'Indian General Navigation and Railway Co. Ltd. v. Krishna Kanta Das', AIR 1949 Assam 25 (A). I was a party to this decision. It was held that on an interpretation of the consignment note the company agreed to act as common carriers over their own transport system only; they did not act, nor purport to act, as common carriers of the 13. and A. Railway. The case is on all fours. The learned counsel has not even tried to dis­tinguish it. The responsibility of the defendants un­der the agreement would be that of agents from Amingaon onwards. There is no dispute that the transport system of defendants ended at that point, so far as this consignment was concerned. (11) Mr. Chose however has relied on - 'River Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Jamunadas Ram Kumar', AIR 1932 Cal 344 (B) in support of the contention that this clause is hit by the provisions contained in S. 8 of the Carriers Act (III of 1865). In this case it was held that "where goods are transported by different transporting agencies while the contract for carry­ing the goods is made with one of the agencies, the other agencies are the agents of the contracting agency which is always responsible for the goods during the whole distance. An agreement with the contracting agency to the effect that it will not be liable for any loss or damages after delivering the goods to another transporting agency is void as offending against S. 8 of the Act." This case was decided long before the decision re­ported in AIR 1949 Assam 25 (A), though it was not considered in that decision. Presumably, it was not relied on. It is so obviously distinguishable from the facts of this case. Clause 11 which was interpreted in that case exonerated the River Steam Navigation Company from the negligence of their servants and agents. It was found that this agreement was opposed to the provisions contained in S. 8. There can be no quar­rel with the proposition laid down in that case but the clause that was being interpreted in that case was very different from the clause with which we are concerned. It was found that this agreement was opposed to the provisions contained in S. 8. There can be no quar­rel with the proposition laid down in that case but the clause that was being interpreted in that case was very different from the clause with which we are concerned. Here the defendants are not claim­ing exoneration from liability as common carriers even if negligence or any criminal act could be at­tributed to their servants. The agreement in this case is that they are liable as common carriers for the entire length of their system. Beyond their system they are merely agents. There is nothing in S. 8 which would make such a contract void. It is not opposed to the provisions contained in any section of the Carriers Act. The defendants thus were merely agents, after handing over the goods to the railway at Amingaon and therefore are not responsible for non-delivery of part of the consignment at destination. This appeal has get no merit. It must fail and is dismissed with costs. (12) DEKA J. : I agree. Appeal dismissed.