JUDGMENT G. C. Mathur, J. - A common question of law relating to the liability of the railway administration for damages in respect of short delivery of goods booked at railway risk but under defective packing arises in these two revisions and, therefore, they are being disposed of by one common judgment. 2. Civil Revision No. 1125 of 1965 arises out of Suit No. 26 of 1962 filed by the applicant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 465/- with interest for short delivery of several consignments of copper scrap. The forwarding notes in respect of these consignments showed that the packing was defective and was not in the manner prescribed in the Goods Tariff, Part I, which required articles like copper scrap to be packed as follows : "Must be securely packed in strong double gunny, not patched or otherwise repaired, and securely stitched." The forwarding notes showed that some of the bags used in the consignment, were old, used, weak and resewn. The consignments were booked and delivered some time in the year 1961 and the case is, therefore, governed by the Indian Railways Act, as it stood prior to the amendment which came into force from January 1, 1962, which will hereinafter be referred to as the 1961 Act. The railway administration pleaded that, even though goods were booked at railway risk, it was protected by Section 74-A of the 1961 Act as the gods were defectively packed and the fact was mentioned in the forwarding notes. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that, even so, the burden of proving that the loss was not due to negligence or misconduct of the railway authorities was on the railway administration which it had failed to discharge. I relied upon the decision of a Single judge of this Court in Virat Pal v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1968 Alld. 2. The opposite-party went up in revision against the judgment and decree of the trial court and the Additional District Judge, Aligarh, allowed the revision, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. He distinguished the decision in Virat Pal v. Union of India, holding that, in his opinion, it was reasonable to infer that the loss was the direct result of the defective packing. The plaintiff has now come up in revision to this Court. 3. He distinguished the decision in Virat Pal v. Union of India, holding that, in his opinion, it was reasonable to infer that the loss was the direct result of the defective packing. The plaintiff has now come up in revision to this Court. 3. Civil Revision No. 1272 of 1967 arises out of Suit No. 42 of 1963 which was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 347- for short delivery in respect of several consignments of copper and brass scrap. In this case also the packing was defective and this fact was mentioned in the forwarding note. In this case, the consignments were booked and delivery was taken after the 1961 Act had been amended with effect from January 1, 1962. The trial court rejected the contention of the railway administration that it was protected by Section 77-C of the amended Act (which is equivalent to Section 74-A of the 1961 Act) as, in its view, it was a case of goods and not of "damage, deterioration, leakage, or wastage", as contemplated by Section 77-C. It further held that the shortage could not be. attributed to the defective packing. It accordingly decreed the suit. On revision, the Additional District Judge, Aligarh, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. He held that the trial court was wrong in holding that there was any burden on the railway administration which it had failed to discharge. The plaintiff has not filed this revision. 4. The relevant provisions of the 1961 Act are Sections 72, 72-A and 74-A. Section 72 provided that the responsibility of a railway administration for the loss, destruction or deterioration of animals or goods delivered to the administration to be carried by railway shall, subject to the other provisions of the Act, be that of a bailee under the Contract Act. Section 72-A provided for execution of forwarding notes by the consignor, inter alia, in cases of articles defectively packed or in a defective condition. Section 74-A was in these terms : "74-A (1) -When any goods tendered to a railway administration for cartage 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-sec. (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 or 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. 5. (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." Section 73 of the amended Act corresponds to Section 72 of the 1961 Act. For purposes of these cases it is not necessary to note the differences in the language of these sections. Section 72 of the amended Act is virtually the same as Section 72-A of the 1961 Act. Section 77-C (1) of the amended Act corresponds to Section 74-A (1) of the 1961 Act and is in these terms : "77-C (1) -When any goods tendered to a railway administration to b carried by railway (a) are in a defective condition as a consequence of which they are liable to damage, deterioration, leakage or wastage, or (b) are either defectively packed or packed in a manner not in accordance with the general or special order, if any, issued tinder sub-sec. (4) and as a result of such defective or improper packing are liable to damage, deterioration. leakage or wastage. and the fact of such condition or defective or improper packing has been recorded by the sender or his agent in the forwarding note, then, not withstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, the railway administration shall not be responsible for any damage, deterioration, leakage or wastage, 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 any of its servants." We are not concerned with sub-secs. (2) and (3) . Sub-sec. (2) and (3) . Sub-sec. (4) provides that "the Central Government may, by general or special order, prescribe the manner in which goods delivered to a railway administration to be carried by railway shall be packed." It thus appears that, to attract the application of Section 74-A of the 1961 Act or of Section 77-C of the amended Act, the following conditions should be satisfied :- (i) That the goods, which are tendered to a railway administration for booking, are either in a defective condition or are defectively packed or packed in a manner not in accordance with the general or special order prescribing the manner of packing; (ii) that the fact of such defective condition or defective or improper packing has been recorded by the consignor or his agent in the forwarding note; and (iii) that, as a consequence of the defective condition or defective or improper packing, the goods are liable to deterioration, leakage, wastage or damage. There is dispute in these cases that the first two conditions are satisfied. What is contended for by the applicant is that it was further necessary for the railway administration to establish that the loss or leakage was the direct result of defective packing etc. before it could be protected by Section 74-A. Learned counsel tor the applicant has relied upon the decision of this Court in Virat Pal v. Union of India where it has been held that, unless the loss is the direct result of defective packing, defective packing cannot give protection to the railway administration,. In this case, a consignment of Aligarh locks was booked from Aligarh to Howrah and the forwarding note stated that the planks of the cases were "weak and loose". There was short delivery of the consignment and it was found at the time of delivery that the cases were broken and had been re-nailed. The railway administration produced no evidence as to how the loss occurred. Mithan Lal, J., who decided this case, observed : "Evidently the loss of the locks was not due to defective packing and unless the loss is the direct result of defective packing, defective packing cannot give protection to the railway administration. If the cases were broken during transit and were re-nailed, the presumption is that there was pilferage of the goods. If the cases were broken during transit and were re-nailed, the presumption is that there was pilferage of the goods. In any case, the railway administration did not show how the boxes were broken or why they had to be re-nailed. The loss cannot be connected to defective packing." In view of the clear language of Section 74-A of the 1961 Act and of Section 77-C of the amended Act, there is no obligation on the railway administration to establish by evidence that the leakage, wastage etc. was actually caused by the defective packing etc. As already observed above, all that it is required to show is that, on account of the defective condition or defective or improper packing, the goods were liable to leakage, wastage etc. in our opinion, the language of Section 74-A of the 1961 Act and of 77-C of the amended Act does not support the view of Mithan Lal, J. that it is incumbent upon the railway administration to show that the loss is the direct result of the defective packing. Learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance upon the decision of a Single Judge of the Bomba) High Court in Union of India v. Radhakisan Ramnath, A.I.R. 1969 Bombay sic In this case also, it has been laid down that the railway administration must, in addition to the first two conditions, to establish that the deterioration, leakage, wastage or damage in transit is a consequence of the defective condition of the defective packing and that the defective packing etc. has actually resulted in the leakage, wastage etc. The judgment in this case shows that the goods were booked at owner's risk and not at railway's risk. Section 74-A is applicable only to cases where goods are booked at railway risk and not to cases which are booked at owner's risk. We axe unable to appreciate how this question arose in that case. However, for the reasons mentioned above, we are unable to accept the view taken by the Bombay High Court. 6. in our opinion, it is not necessary for the railway administration, in invoking the protection of Section 74-A of the 1961 Act or of Section 77-C of the amend. ed Act, to establish that the loss or shortage is the direct result of the defective packing. 6. in our opinion, it is not necessary for the railway administration, in invoking the protection of Section 74-A of the 1961 Act or of Section 77-C of the amend. ed Act, to establish that the loss or shortage is the direct result of the defective packing. If the railway administration establishes that the three condition set out above are satisfied, then Section 74-A of the 1961 Act or Section 77-C of the amended Act will apply and the plaintiff cannot succeed, except upon proving negligence or misconduct of the railway administration or of its servants. Of course, if it is shown that the loss, wastage or leakage etc. could not have arisen from the defective packing etc. but was due to some extraneous cause, unconnected with the defective packing etc. Section 74-A or 77-C will not protect the railway administration. All that the railway administration has to show is that the loss, wastage or leakage etc, was liable to occur on account of the defective condition or packing. The protection will not be available if the plaintiff shows that the loss etc. was not relatable to the defective packing etc. but was due to some outside cause. 7. In the present case, it is not denied that the first two conditions are satisfied. In view of the defective packing, it is clear that the goods were liable to leakage or wastage. The applicant has failed to produce any evidence to show that the wastage or leakage was due to negligence or misconduct of the railway administration or of its servants. Nor has it been shown that the leakage or wastage was due to some cause other than defective packing. Even if it were necessary for the railway administration to show that the leakage or wastage was due to the defective packing, it would be reasonable, in the circumstances of the present cases, to infer that the leakage or wastage was due to defective packing. 8. In the result, the revision applications are dismissed with costs.