K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THIS Appeal is preferred by the defendant against the Judgment and decree dated 30th September 1980 passed by the learned IV additional Civil Judge, Bangalore in O. S. No. 673/1977. ( 2 ) THE respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent plaintiff is a firm. It filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 20,414/- with court costs and current interest from the defendant Railway being the value of the consignment 346 bundles of safety matches entrusted to the defendant on 17-7-1974 under Ex. D1 to be delivered at Kankaria that according to the case of the plaintiff the goods were not delivered nor the arrival of the goods at Kankaria was notified; that the goods caught fire on 24-9-1974; that due care and caution was not taken by the Railway in keeping the goods therefore, the Railway administration was responsible for payment of the value of the goods amounting to Rs. 20,414/ -. Before filing the suit a notice as required by law was also issued. The suit was filed on 17-9-1977. ( 3 ) THE defendant contested the suit on various grounds and inter alia contended that requisite care and caution was taken by the railway administration; that the plaintiff failed to take delivery of the goods even though it took delivery of the other two consignments which were sent along with the consignment in question in the same wagon booked on the same day; that the plaintiff took delivery of the other two consignments on 7-8-1974; but failed to take delivery of the consignment in question on that day; that the claim of the plaintiff was barred by time having regard to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890. ( 4 ) IN the light of these contentions, the Trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether Sattur Nataraja Traders (Plaintiff) is registered with the Registrar of Firms? 2. Whether Arulmoli Rajan is a Partner of the said firm? 3. Whether the suit is or is not maintainable under Section 69 (2), Partnership Act? 4. Whether the defendant proves that the railway had taken due care and caution over the consignment during transit? 5. Whether the consignment was damaged for reason beyond the control of railway administration? 6. 2. Whether Arulmoli Rajan is a Partner of the said firm? 3. Whether the suit is or is not maintainable under Section 69 (2), Partnership Act? 4. Whether the defendant proves that the railway had taken due care and caution over the consignment during transit? 5. Whether the consignment was damaged for reason beyond the control of railway administration? 6. Whether the railway is not liable for reason under Section 77 (2) Railways Act? 7. Whether the loss or damage is referable to negligence or misconduct on the part of railway? 8. Whether the amount claimed in the plaint is not due to the plaintiff towards the loss of consignment? 9. Whether the plaintiff proves the service of valid notice under Section 78-B, Railways Act? 10. Whether the plaintiff proves service of valid notice under Section 80 C. P. C. ? 11. What decree or order? ( 5 ) THE plaintiff in support of its case examined two witnesses including one of its partners as P. W. 1 and also one Mr. Meenappan as P. W. 2 who was the Manager in the plaintiff firm. The plaintiff also produced five documents which were marked as Exs. P1 to P5. The defendant examined two witnesses as D. W. 1 and D. W. 2. D. W. 1 was the First Inspector and D. W. 2 was the Senior Goods Clerk, commercial Branch. It also produced 9 documents which were marked as Exs. D1 to D9. ( 6 ) ON the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court answered Issues 1 to 4 and 7 to 10 in the Affirmative and answered Issues 5 and 6 in the Negative. Accordingly, it decreed the suit as prayed for. It also produced 9 documents which were marked as Exs. D1 to D9. ( 6 ) ON the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court answered Issues 1 to 4 and 7 to 10 in the Affirmative and answered Issues 5 and 6 in the Negative. Accordingly, it decreed the suit as prayed for. ( 7 ) IN this Appeal, Sri Jagannath, learned Central Government pleader appearing for the appellant contends that the finding recorded by the Trial Court that there was negligence on the part of the Railway administration in maintaining the goods in question is 'not justified because the goods were kept in the godown under the lock and key; that at any rate the plaintiff was aware of the arrival of the goods and it took delivery of the other two consignments on 7-8-1974 and purposely failed to take delivery of the consignment in question, therefore, there was no question of issuing any notice; that even otherwise, the Trial Court is not right in holding that a notice was necessary in view of the fact that the Railway administration before it purported to take action under Section 56 of the Act, the goods caught fire and were destroyed; that at any rate, having regard to the fact that the goods arrived at Kankaria on 6-8-1974 at about 4-45 p. m. and thereafter the transit time stood terminated on the expiry of three days from the date of arrival of the goods at Kankaria, and the destruction of the goods by fire took place on 24-9-1974, long after the expiry of the period prescribed under Section 77 of the Act; therefore, the Railways were not liable as the liability of the Railways had come to an end even before 24-9-1974, therefore, the trial Court is not justified in decreeing the claim made by the plaintiff. It is also contended that Sections 73 and 77 of the Act are to be read together and the period of liability of the Railway administration prescribed under Section 77 of the Act also covers the liability of the Railway administration under Section 73 of the Act. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned Central Government Pleader that on this ground also the decree of the Trial Court is not sustainable. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned Central Government Pleader that on this ground also the decree of the Trial Court is not sustainable. ( 8 ) ON the contrary, it is contended by Sri Sadasivan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent /plaintiff that the goods were entrusted under the Railways risk. The fact that the goods arrived at kanakaria on 6-8-1974 and the plaintiff took delivery of the other two consignments did not in any way absolve the Railway administration from its liability as a bailee; that the liability of the Railway as a carrier might have come to an end on the expiry of the period mentioned in section 77 of the Act, but, nevertheless, its liability as a bailee continued as long as the goods were not taken delivery of, and no notice was issued to the plaintiff to take delivery of the goods. The learned Counsel placed reliance on Sections 55 and 56 of the Act and contended that Sections 73 and 77 of the Act are to be read subject to the provisions of Sections 55 and 56 of the Act, as otherwise it is contended by the learned Counsel, the very purpose and the object of making the Railway as a bailee will be frustrated, hence, it is contended that in the absence of notice issued by the defendant and also in the absence of due care and caution, taken by the defendant for keeping the goods in safe custody, the trial Court is justified in passing the decree as prayed for. ( 9 ) IN the light of these contentions, the following points arise for consideration: 1. Whether the loss or destruction of the goods in question was due to negligence and failure to use reasonable foresight and care by the Railway Administration? 2. Whether the liability of the Railway Administration either as a carrier of goods or as a warehouse-keeper extended upto 24-9-1974? 3. Whether the period of responsibility prescribed under section 77 (2) of the Act governs the claim arising under Section 73 of the Act also? ( 10 ) BEFORE we take up Point No. 1 for consideration, it is relevant to notice the undisputed facts of the case. The plaintiff entrusted on 17-7-1974 three consignments to the defendant - Railway administration at Bangalore - to be carried to and delivered at kankaria. ( 10 ) BEFORE we take up Point No. 1 for consideration, it is relevant to notice the undisputed facts of the case. The plaintiff entrusted on 17-7-1974 three consignments to the defendant - Railway administration at Bangalore - to be carried to and delivered at kankaria. The invoices relating to the three consignments were invoice Nos. 2, 3 and 4. All the three consignments were sent in one wagon only. Of course, the Invoice Nos. 2 and 3 are not produced in the case, because, the plaintiff topk delivery of the goods sent under invoice Nos. 2 and 3 on 7-8-1974 itself. However, it did not take delivery of the goods sent under Invoice No. 4 which is marked as ex. D1 and the forwarding note as Ex. D2. The goods were lying for sometime on the platform and thereafter they were kept in the old godown. The goods were ultimately destroyed due to fire on 24-9-1974. It is also not in dispute that between the period 6-8-1974 to 24-9-1974 the plaintiff did not make any attempt to take delivery of the goods. The consignee of the goods was consignor only as they were sent under self. ( 11 ) POINT No. 1:- The Trial Court has held that there was negligence on the part of the Railway administration in maintaining the goods. In this regard the evidence was adduced by the Railway administration because the burden was upon the Railway administration to prove that it has used foresight and care in respect of the carriage of the goods in question. Therefore, it examined d. W. 1. and also marked the report made by the Railway Protection force. Ex. D9 shows that the goods were received on 6-8-1974 arid were lying undelivered and the Wagon No. 75182 c/w. Invoice No. 4 was clubbed with Invoice No. 2 and 3 of 17-7-1974. The goods were unloaded on 6-8-1974 at 16. 45 hrs. The goods pertaining to invoice no. 4 were not taken delivery by the consignee. They were lying undelivered. They were shifted to "old goods shed KKF". The goods were burnt totally on 24-9-1974. Freight charges of Rs. 444/- had been paid. Ex. D. 8 is the fire report made by the Railway Protection Force. It is dated 25-9-1974. The said report reads thus: "special REPORT CASE. Loss about rs. 2,00,000/- (two lakhs) form NO. They were lying undelivered. They were shifted to "old goods shed KKF". The goods were burnt totally on 24-9-1974. Freight charges of Rs. 444/- had been paid. Ex. D. 8 is the fire report made by the Railway Protection Force. It is dated 25-9-1974. The said report reads thus: "special REPORT CASE. Loss about rs. 2,00,000/- (two lakhs) form NO. RPF/f-9 western RAILWAY railway PROTECTION FORCE (FIRE SERVICE) fire REPORT division: BRC Fire Report No. FS/kkf/15/6/74 station: Kankaria Date of Incident: 24-9-1974 officer-in-charge at Fire SIPF/f/hs. Maktyani. 1. CALL called by: R. K. Ramlal telephone No. Vertial. Address of the premises involved: Old goods shed KKF occupier's name: W. Railway time of Call: 21 -30 time of first turn-out 21 -32 Mrs. Time of arrival at incidental -37 hrs. Distance from station to incident:2 K. Ms. 2. Particulars of fire description of property involved, industry: 600 cases of fire works, 147 bundles of match boxes. Type of Construction, area, etc. , No. 1274 in wagon No. Category of Fire:serious. . Extent of fire:30 ' X 20 X 40' and 9' X 20' X 6 supposed cause of fire:under Police Investigation. Description of damage: Fire Works cases Match box bundles and 28 bundles. . Estimated value of (i) Property involved: Approximate Rs. 2,00,000/- (ii) Surrounding risk, if any: 5 loaded wagons, (iii) Damage to premises: Above Rs. 2,00,000/- (iv) Damage to contents: Above two lakhs. Name of the last Officer to leave the fire: H. S. Maktyani SIPF (F) time and date fire extinguished: 00-15 hrs on 25-9-1974. Total time employed : 3 hours - Minutes 2 (a) Particulars of extinguishing Media media employed for extinguishing fire: cooling. Gears and appliance use: Fire Engine branch pipes etc. Source of water supply: City Fire Brigade tanker. 3. Persons escaped/rescued. Nil. 4. Casualties. Nil. 5. Attendance at Occurrence.