Judgment H.Mahapatra, J. 1. The petitioners were the plaintiffs in a suit in the Small Cause Court, where they claimed Rs. 415 from the Railways on account of short delivery of goods, which had been consigned on the 18th May, 1961. They had asked for open delivery, and when the delivery was made on the 22nd May, 1961, some part of the consignment were found missing, and, thereafter, the petitioners served notice under Section 75 of the Indian Railways Act as well as under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and instituted a suit for recovery of the amount. In defence, it was pleaded that there was no proper service of notice and the suit was barred by limitation and the Railway administration was not liable for the loss of the goods under Section 75 of the Railways Act, because the articles consigned came within the description of articles mentioned in the Second Schedule of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 . 2. The trial Court held that the notice was properly served and the claim of the Plaintiffs was true; but the suit was dismissed, because, in its view the consignment contained articles of porcelain and siren articles answered the description under (k) in the Second Schedule of the Act. Under Section 75 (i) of the Indian Railways Act, "when any articles mentioned in the Second Schedule are contained in any parcel or package delivered to a railway administration for carriage by railway, and the value of such articles in the parcel or package exceeds three hundred rupees, the railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the parcel or package unless the person sending or delivering the parcel or package to the administration caused its value and contents to be declared in writing or declared them in writing at the time of the delivery of the parcel or package for carriage by railway, and, if so required by the administration, paid or engaged to pay in writing a percentage on the value so declared by way of compensation for increased risk". It is under this provision that the defendant railway administration wants to take shelter as no declaration was made by the consigner. In evidence, on behalf of the defendant, it was brought out that some of the articles missing were electric switches, of which the base was made of porcelain. It is under this provision that the defendant railway administration wants to take shelter as no declaration was made by the consigner. In evidence, on behalf of the defendant, it was brought out that some of the articles missing were electric switches, of which the base was made of porcelain. The trial Court took the view that these articles will come within (k) of the Second Schedule, which read as follows: "(K) are pottery and all articles made of glass, china or marble". What is included in that is an article made of china. The switch is certainly not made of china. A part of the article is made of china or porcelain. This clear distinction the trial Court should have kept in view. What is included in the Second Schedule (K) is not an article, of which a component part may be of glass or marble or china. The decision of the trial Court is, therefore, completely misconceived. The marginal heading of Section 75 reads further provision with respect to the liability of a railway administration as a carrier of articles of special value. The emphasis is on the special value of the consignment. That means, if very valuable articles are included in the consignment, and the common carrier or the bailee, like the railway administration, is not aware of such contents, they should not ordinarily be saddled with compensation for loss, or destruction or deterioration of such articles during transit. By making the base of a switch out of porcelain, the article, namely, the switch, does not become of any special value. May be, the value of such switch is a little more than a purely bakelite switch without having such porcelain base, but that does not convert the article to be of any special value. The legislature mentioned some other articles in that Schedule though wrought or mixed with other things an article of china one has to take, by contrast therefore, a whole articles made of china, and not a component part of it. In my view, therefore, the goods, which were consigned and which were found missing, do not come within any of the descriptions given in (k) of the Second Schedule, and as such Section 75 will have no application. 3 There is also another way to look at the thing. In my view, therefore, the goods, which were consigned and which were found missing, do not come within any of the descriptions given in (k) of the Second Schedule, and as such Section 75 will have no application. 3 There is also another way to look at the thing. The predominant feature of a switch, of which a part is porcelain, cannot be taken to be porcelain. A switch is predominantly a switch, and the upper portion, which works as a switch, is the predominant feature of that article. Taking a broad and common sense meaning of a switch of that nature (of which the base is out of porcelain), no one can think that it is an article of porcelain or china. In Dominion of India V/s. Eversharp Agency, (S) AIR 1955 Bom 98, Chagla, C. J. came to consider about Eversharp fountain pens, of which nibs, clips and caps were made of gold. The question was whether that article could be covered by Second Schedule (a) which states gold and silver, coined or uncoined, manufactured or unmanufactured. It was held that the fountain pen consisted not only of these component parts, such as cap, clip and nib, but also the bakelite portions of it, and, on the top of that, a great deal of labour, designing, skill and art went to the manufacture of that article. Predominantly, a fountain pen cannot be said to be of gold, manufactured or unmanufactured. In that view, that article was ruled out of the Second Schedule of the Railways Act, and the railway administration was held liable to pay compensation for the loss of such articles during the transit, and the provisions of Section 75 were not applicable to that. Similarly, in firm Kidar Nath, Raj Narain V/s. E. I. Rly, Co., ILR 45 All 453 : (AIR 1923 All 538 (2)), wax pearls, containing a thin glass covering, were held not to be articles of glass and, therefore, outside Section 75 of the Act. 4. Judging from this view, the trial Courts decision is clearly in error, which is, accordingly, set aside and the plaintiffs suit is decreed with costs. The application is allowed with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 35.00.