JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) A short and simple, but important question of law has come up for our decision in this matter, indeed, that too on admitted facts. ( 2. ) A railway accident took place on 16. 5. 1978 and admittedly, respondent No. 1 was travelling by that train which was involved in that accident. Admittedly also, the compartment in which he was travelling was damaged in the accident and for loss suffered by him on account of his goods being damaged which he was carrying with him in the compartment in which he was travelling, he lodged a claim, as contemplated under the Railways Act. That claim was allowed in toto in the sum of Rs. 31,015/ -. However, on that, a lump sum deduction of 25 per cent was made. The dispute, on the other hand, in this petition, raised by the railway authorities is with regard to a single item for which compensation in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been allowed to the claimant-respondent. For two numbers of photometers (AOMIL make) that compensation was allowed. ( 3. ) THE short question that falls for our decision is whether such an award could have been made in regard to that item. Admittedly, the claimant-respondent was not the owner of that equipment. As a Soil Chemist in the employment of Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. , Bhopal, the claimant-respondent was carrying with him those two photometers and, thus, the equipment was of the ownership of his employer. That fact, he admitted in his evidence. ( 4. ) MR. H. D. Gupta, Railways counsel, has submitted that the Claims Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass any award in regard to that equipment because only for "goods owned by the passenger and accompanying the passenger in his compartment or on the train", loss, destruction or deterioration in regard thereto can be compensated and liability in that regard is on the railway administration under Section 82-A of the Act. In our view, the respondent was a bailee only and admittedly, not owner of the goods. It is not his case that he had been charged by the employer with any liability in regard to the loss, damage or destruction of the photometers in terms of Section 150 of the Contract Act. In our view, the respondent was a bailee only and admittedly, not owner of the goods. It is not his case that he had been charged by the employer with any liability in regard to the loss, damage or destruction of the photometers in terms of Section 150 of the Contract Act. Indeed, in the circumstances of the case, he had a valid defence against the employer under Section 152 of the Contract Act for the loss and damage of the equipment in question. In any case, it has not been brought on record that the bailment had terminated in any manner arid ownership of the equipment in question had vested in the claimant-respondent so as to give him the right contemplated under Section 82-A to claim compensation in regard to the photometers. ( 5. ) IN the circumstances aforesaid, the award of the Claims Commissioner must be modified as it suffers from jurisdictional infirmity of the manner above-referred. We direct that the claimant-respondent shall be entitled to be paid the compensation as determined by the Claims Commissioner except that lump sum deduction contemplated under the award for other items except photometers, in respect of which the claim of respondent-claimant is held inadmissible. ( 6. ) IT is submitted by Mr. Swami Saran that some money has been deposited in this court by the Railways. If that be so, it shall be open to the claimant-respondent to make appropriate application to the Additional Registrar of this court who shall dispose of the same in terms of the modified award herein made. As to the costs, entitlement of the respondent-claimant as per directions of the Claims Commissioner are upheld, but there shall be no order as to costs of these proceedings. Balance of sum deposited shall be refunded to the Railways. Outstanding amount of security shall be refunded to the petitioner.