R. S. Narula, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeals Nos. 13-D, 15-D to 17-D, 24-D and 32-D of 1965 and Civil Revision No. 328-D of 1959. The relevant facts of all these cases are substantially similar. All the second appeals are by the Union of India which was the defendant in the trial Court. The revision petition has been filed by the firm Surat Ram Atma Ram who were plaintiffs in the Court of Small Causes, Delhi. In all these cases which are at second appellate stage the plaintiffs filed suits for the recovery of damages for short delivery of part of the consignments of G. I. pipes and black pipes etc. In the relevant forwarding notes relating to the consignments in dispute an endorsement to the following effect had been recorded by the sender or his agent :- "the consignment is in had condition and or defectively packed as follows-P. 31 not complied with, sockets not packed separately but loosely fitted with pipes. The consignments are tied with ( 2 ) AT the destination station some of the pipes etc. were found missing. Short delivery certificates in respect of the missing part of the consignments were furnished to the plaintiffs. In the suits filed by the respective plaintiffs one of the defences taken by the Union of India was that when the goods in question were tendered to the Railway Administration for carriage they were defectively packed and were packed in a manner not in accordance with the prescribed conditions for the goods in question (condition P. 31) and that it was as a result of such defective or improper packing that the goods were lost and, therefore, the Railway Administration was exonerated from liability by section 74-A of the Indian Railway Act, 1890, as amended upto 1959 (hereinafter called the Act) as there was no proof of any negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration or of any of its servants. In short the defence under section 74-A of the Act was pleaded. In all the cases which have given rise to the second appeals the trial Court framed the following amongst other issues, which are relevant for the disposal of these appeals :- 5. Whether the packing condition P. 31 is applicable to the consignment in question ? 6. In short the defence under section 74-A of the Act was pleaded. In all the cases which have given rise to the second appeals the trial Court framed the following amongst other issues, which are relevant for the disposal of these appeals :- 5. Whether the packing condition P. 31 is applicable to the consignment in question ? 6. If issue No. 5 is proved, whether the plaintiff complied with packing condition P. 31. If not to what effect ? 7. If issue No. 6 is proved, whether the short delivery is due to any negligence on the part of the Railway Administration concerned. ( 3 ) THE trial Court held that packing condition P. 31 was applicable to the consignments in question that the said packing condition was not complied w th by the consignor, that there was an endorsement on the respective forwarding notes in the hands of the representatives of the consignor-firm a. d nitting non cormpliance with the requisite picking condition but that saction74-A of the Act was not applicable as short delivery of goods did not amount to dateriation or leakage of or was tage in or damage to the goods in question. The learned Sub Judge, however, held that the shortage was due to the negligence of the consignors themselves and, therefore, they were not entitled to recover anything from the Railway Administration. In that view of the matter all those Suits were dismissed by the trial Court. ( 4 ) NOT satisfied with the decree of the trial Court the plaintiffs preferred appeals in their respective causes to the Court of District Judge, Delhi. The Court of Shri Udham Singh, Additional District Judge, Delhi upheld the findings of the trial Court on the question of applicability of and pon-compliance with the packing conditions P. 31 and also about the requisite endorsement having been made on the forwarding notes but reversed the finding of the trial Court relating to the alleged negligence of the plaintiffs and consequently decreed all the suits against the Union of India on the finding that the defendant was not exonerated of the liability under section 74-A of the Act. The Union of India has come up in second appeal against the judgments and decrees of the first appellate Court in all those cases. The Union of India has come up in second appeal against the judgments and decrees of the first appellate Court in all those cases. ( 5 ) IN the case of firm Surat Ram Atma Ram a consignment comprising of nine cases of cut piece goods was sent" to the plaintiff, 16 pairs of dhotis were short-delivered to the plaintiff at the destination station. He claimed Rs. 256. 00 as damages in the suit filed by him before the Judge, Small Cause Court Delhi. It was proved that a remark had been made on the forwarding note by the consignor about one case having been defectively packed On that basis Shri Dev Raj Saini, Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Delhi, by his judgment dated 13th March, l959 dismissed the suit of the firm on the ground that in the absence of evidence of negligence or misconduct of the Railway Administration the Union of India was exonerated of liability under section 74-A of the Act as the defendant was not responsible for any deterioration , leakage, wastage or damage to the goods, to that case the plaintiff-firm has come up in this Court in Civil Revision No. 321-D of 1959. ( 6 ) THE common question of law which calls for determination in all these cases is whether the provisions of section 74-A of the Act apply o a case of short delivery or not. In other words the question is whether it can be said that the goods which have been completely lost and short delivered have either deteriorated or leaked or been wasted or suffered any damage in transit as a consequence of the defective condition of the picking or as a consequence of nan-campliance with the prescribed packing conditions. R. B. Nanak Chand. the learned counsel for the Railway Administration has referred to the notes on clauses by the Select Committee and the aims and objects of the Bill which was ultimately passed as the amending Act 56 of l949 as well asthe preamble of the amending Act and has argued that the intention of the Legislature in enacting section 74-A of the principal Act was not to give away any protection which the Railway Administration enjoyed under prescribed risk note A which was substituted by section 71-A of the Act. In R. M. D. Chamarbaugwalla and another v. Union of India and another, it was held that when a question arises as to the interpretation to be put on an enactment, what the Court has to do is to ascertain "the intent of them that make it" and that must of course be gathered from the words actually used in the statute. Their Lordships held that to arrive at the real meaning it is always necessary to get an axact conception of the aim, scope and object of the whole Act and to consider what was the law before the Act was passed, what was the mischief or defect for which the law had not provided and what remedy Parliament had appointed and the reason of the remedy. In that context it was held by the Supreme Court that the parliamentary history of the enactment is not admissible to construe its meaning and that the intention of the Legislature canuot be gathered from what is contained in the statement of objects and reasons but from the plain language of the statute itself. In view of the law settled by the Supreme Court it does not appear to be advisable to interpret the provisions of section 74-A of the Act by reference to the legislative history or the aims and objects and particularly the notes on clauses of the Bill by members of the Select Committee. THE learned counsel for the Railway Administration then relied on the judgments of the Allahabad High Court in Bansi Ram v. B. N. W. Ry. Co. and another" and in Sccy. of State and another v. Rup Ram Audh Behari Lap and argued that shortoge in weight is a condition of goods in which they are delivered and shortage on account of slippin" out of some of the bales out of a consignment is covered by the protection which is obtainable to the Railway Administration under risk note A. It is, however, pointed out by Pt. Raj Kishan. the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents that the Allahabad High Court itself declined to follow the ratio of the judgment in Bansi Ram s case while giving its judgment in Triloki Nath v. Governor General in Council E. I. Ry. Similarly the judgment of Dalal J. in Secy. Raj Kishan. the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents that the Allahabad High Court itself declined to follow the ratio of the judgment in Bansi Ram s case while giving its judgment in Triloki Nath v. Governor General in Council E. I. Ry. Similarly the judgment of Dalal J. in Secy. of State and another v. Rup Ram Audh Behari Lal and another was dissented from in a subsequent judgment of the same Court i. e. in Qadir Salamat Ullah v. Governor General in Council. The counsel then referred to a judgment of the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court (Shadi Lal C. J. and Bhide, J.) in Bengal North Western Railway Co. v. Firm Dassundhi Mal Bishambar Das, wherein it was held that risk note a confers exemption from liability only in respect of the condition of the goods at the time of the delivery at destination and the said risk note cannot confer immunity from liability for loss due to other causes e. g. loss due to fall in prices or due to disappearance of goods by theft, etc. All these causes related to risk note A the wordings of which were different from the language of section 74-\ of the Act. Byrisk note A the consignor undertook to hold the Railway Administration harmless and free from all responsibility for the condition in which the goods might be delivered to the consignee at the destination station and for any loss" arising from the same. The undertaking to hold the Railway Administration harmless for "any loss" has not been carried over from the risk note into section 74-A of the Act. The judgments relating to interpretation, effect and scope of risk note a" do not, therefore, appear to me to be relevant for interpretation of section 74-A of the Act. ( 7 ) SHRI Nanak Chand then referred to the judgment of the House of Lords in Phoenix Insurance Company of Hartford and another v. De Monchy", wherein it was held that loss of turpentine oil in a consign ment amounted to leakage of the oil and that leakage meant involuntary escape. The said judgment of the House of Lords is no authority for holding that G 1. Pipes short delivered are deemed to have leaked out. It is not the involuntary, escape of everything which can amount to leakage. The said judgment of the House of Lords is no authority for holding that G 1. Pipes short delivered are deemed to have leaked out. It is not the involuntary, escape of everything which can amount to leakage. ( 8 ) THE counsel then referred to the judgment of the Ajmer High Court in Union of India v. Kalyanmal Chokriwala, where, a consignment of a number of bags of jaggery was found to be short in weight owing to leakage and was held that the case was governed by section 74-A of the Act and the Railway Administration could not be responsible for the leakage except upon proof of negligence and misconduct, etc. Once again jaggery is a semi-liquid and is liable to leakage on acocunt of the bags being torn. The same does not apply to iron pipes and G. 1. pipes. Besides referring to the judgement of the Calcutta High Court in Gangadhar Ram Chandra v. Dominion of India", relating to a case of rape seeds and to the judgment of the Nagpur High Court in Union of India v. Dhanpal Patnft", which related to a consignment of dates, the learned counsel also Claimed on the basis of the judgment of the Patna High Court in Bengal and North-Western Railway Company v. Tupan Dass, that - short delivery", would be covered by the expression "deterioration. " The counsel then argued that short delivery would also be covered by the words "wastage" and "damage" as contained in section 74-A of the Act. Section 74-A of the Act reads of follows;- "74-A. (1) When any goods tendered to a railway administration for carriage by railway- (a) are in a defective condition as a consequence of which they are liable to deterioration, leakage, wastage or damage in transit, or (b) are either defectively packed or packed in a manner not in accordance with the general or special order, if any, issued under sub-section (2) and as a result of such defective or improper packing are liable to leakage, wastage or damage in transit. " and the fact of such condition of defective or improper packing has been recorded by the sender or his agent in the forwarding note, the railway administration shall not be responsible for any deterioration, leakage wastage or damage or for the condition in which such goods are available for delivery at destination, except upon proof of negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway administration or of any of its servants. (2) The Central Government may. by general or special order prescribe the manner in which goods tendered to a railway administration for carriage by railway shall be packed. "the necessary ingredients for the invoking of the protection of the above provision of law by a railway administration are these:- (a) at the time of entrustment of the goods for carriage to the Railway administration the goods themselves should be in a defective condition as a consequence of which they are liable to deterioration, leakage, wastage or damage in transit (clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 74-A): (b) the goods at the time of entrustment should be defectively packed or packed in a manner not in accordance with the general or special order issued by the Central Government under sub-section (2) of that section; and (e) in a case covered by clause (b) above i. e. in case of defective packing it should be found that the goods were liable to leakage or wastage or damage in transit as a result of the defective or im- proper packing; and (d) in either case the fact of the defectivecondition of the goods or the defective or improper packing has been recorded by the sender in the forwarding note. ( 9 ) IT is on the fulfilment of the above conditions alone that the Railway Administration can claim that it is not responsible for any deterioration, leakage, wastage or damage or for the condition in which the goods are available at the time of delivery at the destination station except upon proof of negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration. The only liability which the Railway Administration can escape under sub-clause (a) of section 74 A (1) of the Act relates to the condition in which the goods are available for delivery at the destination station due to deterioration, leakage, wastage or damage in transit occasioned on account of the defective condition of the goods at the time of their entrustinent. These cases do not fall under clause (a) of section 74-A (1) of the Act as there was nothing wrong with the condition of the goods themselves at the time of their entrust ment to the Railway Administration for carrage. The only ground on which the section can be invoked in these cases is covered by clause (b) sub-section (1) i. e. , because of non-compliance with the prescribed packing condition. But even under clause (b) the only liability u{ which the Railway Admi histration is exonerated is of "deteioration, leakage, wastage or damage" of the goods The question whether a c?se of short delivery falls within any of those expressions came up for decision before H. R. Khanna, J. in Union of India v. Raunaq Singh. That case also related to loss of part of the consignments consisting ef pipes with sockets. The learned Judge held that the Railway Administration was not entitled to claim the protection of section 74-A of the Act for such loss. The judgment of Khanna is on all fours against the Union of India. I am not only bound by the said judgment but I am in full agreement with the ratio of the same. Even as early as in 1951 it was held by Harnam Singh, J. in Mfs Janeshwar Lal Rajeshwar Lal v. Dommion of India",in a case relating to risk note A) that even risk note A had no application to the case of failure to deliver the goods booked to the consignee because a thing never delivered cannot be said to have been delivered in any defective condition etc. Pt. Raj Kishan then referred to the Judgment of the Patna High Court in Governor-Gmeral of India in Council v. Firm Bishundayal Ram Gourishanker. That case also related to risk note A and it was held that loss by pilferage of the goods did not exonerate the Railway Administration from liability under that risk note. Pt. Raj Kishan then referred to the Judgment of the Patna High Court in Governor-Gmeral of India in Council v. Firm Bishundayal Ram Gourishanker. That case also related to risk note A and it was held that loss by pilferage of the goods did not exonerate the Railway Administration from liability under that risk note. In connection with section 74 B of the Act which relates to carriage by open vehicles and in which section also the word "damage" is used it was held by the Calcutta High Cout in Governor-General in Council v. Patal Paul and Co. ", that short delivery of goods does not amount to damage to the goods. It was similarly held by the Bombay High Court in M/s Jiwaji Esmailjee and Sons v. Union of lndiathat "damage" does not include non delivery of goods. ( 10 ) IN the above State of law I do not find any force in any of the second appeals of the Union of India and I hold that particularly in view of the law laid down by Khanna, J. in Raunaq Singh s case the judgment of the Additional Judge Small Cause Court, Delhi in dismissing the suit of the firm Surat Ram Atma Ram cannot be maintained. I accordingly accept Civil Revision No. 328-D of 195s with costs and dismiss the regular second appeals Nos. 13-D, IS-D, 17-D, 24 D and 32-D of 1965 with costs. On the oral request of R. B. Nanak C hand, the learned counsel for the Railway Administration I grant to the Union of India the requisite certificate under clause 10 of the Letters Patent.