JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - Unsuccessful plaintiff-appellant, the Punjab State Co- operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, Chandigarh (for short the Federation), has filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgement and decree dated 25.10.1978 passed by the Court of the Sub-Judge First Class, Jalandhar who dismissed the money suit of the plaintiff-appellant for damages against the UOI and Chief Commercial Superintendent (Claims),Northern Railway, I.R.C.A. Building, New Delhi. 2. The pleadings of the parties can be summarised in the following manner :- The Federation through its Managing Director filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 33,872/- against the defendants by inter alia alleging that the consignment of 500 bales each containing 400 new empty gunny bags properly packed was tendered for despatch at Howrah in good condition and was booked in Wagon No. WRG-30663 under the supervision of the railway staff; that the consignment was booked under Invoice No. 364 RR No. 029953 dated 3.6.1971 to Jalandhar City consigned to the plaintiff as consignee; that on 10.6.1971 said wagon was unloaded by the Railway Authorities at a kacha uncovered shed against the wishes of the plaintiff who had objected to that; that after unloading the bales of gunny bags, the defendant failed to provide proper covering by tarpaulines even to protect the goods from the damage in the event of rains, that the consignment sustained damages as the Railway Authorities at the destination allowed the same to remain uncovered in the open on kacha uncovered platform in the rainy season. Thus, the Railway Authorities failed to protect the consignment; that the consignment got wet and continued to lie in knee deep water and the plaintiff thus, suffered a damage of approximately Rs. 30,000/- and a written request was made to the Goods Inspector, Jalandhar, to arrange delivery as assessment of the damage; that the Railway Authorities did not pay the damages to the plaintiff Society though the same was got assessed. Resultantly, notice under Section 78 of the Indian Railway Act was given to the defendants. Notice under Section 80 Code of Civil Procedure was also given. 3. Suit was contested by the defendants who alleged that the suit is not legally maintainable and that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit because federation is not a juristic person in the eye of law. Notice under Section 80 Code of Civil Procedure was also given. 3. Suit was contested by the defendants who alleged that the suit is not legally maintainable and that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit because federation is not a juristic person in the eye of law. The loading and unloading of goods was admitted by the defendants. However, it was stated that unloading of the goods was done by the plaintiff through its representative Shri Har Kishan Lal, Contractor who signed on the railway record regarding the said unloading. The defendants denied that no covering of tarpaulines was provided. The defendants further admitted that the goods were unloaded on run up siding at an open platform as per routine and that they were not negligent and all care was done in protecting the goods from damage. The liability of the carrier terminated when the plaintiff refused to accept delivery of their goods and that the book delivery of the goods was taken by the plaintiff on 5.7.1971 and the plaintiff himself was to be blamed for his negligence for not removing the goods and, therefore, the suit is not liable to be decreed. 4. The plaintiff filed replication in which he reiterated the allegations made against him and denied the averments made in the written statement. 5. From the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court :- 1. Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to file the suit ? OPP 2. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD 3. Whether the notice under Section 80 CPC and the claim under Section 78(b) of the Railway Act were valid ? OPD 4. Whether the damage to the goods was not due to the negligence of the Railway ? OPD 5. To what amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled from the defendants ? OPD 6. Relief 6. The parties led evidence in support of their case and under Issue No. 1, it was decided by the trial Court that plaintiff-Federation has no locus standi to file the present suit. Issue No. 1 was decided against the plaintiff and against the defendants. Issues Nos. 2 to 5 were decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that he had no locus standi to file the suit. Issue No. 1 was decided against the plaintiff and against the defendants. Issues Nos. 2 to 5 were decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that he had no locus standi to file the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25.10.1978 passed by Sub Judge First Class, Jalandhar, the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. 7. I have heard Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate, for the appellant. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents and I am disposing of the appeal with the assistance rendered by the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. Before I enter into discussion, it will be appropriate for me to re- produce paras 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment of the trial Court :- "7. It was admitted at the stage of arguments by the counsel for the parties that the plaintiff-Society was only the consignee of the goods and not consignor. It was the admitted case that the consignor of the goods was someone else. The main lines of the arguments adopted by the learned counsel for the defendant. Shri M.R.W. Dhawan, Advocate, it that the suit could not at all be maintained by the consignee and proved on the file that the title in the goods had passed to the consignee when the goods were in its transit and the payment of the goods has been made by the consignee to land fortification to his certain authorities. Firstly, he drew my attention to the authority of the Supreme Court reported as 1966 Supreme Court 395, the Union of India v The West Punjab Electronics Ltd. wherein their Lordships had laid down three propositions. Firstly, that ordinarily it is the consignor who can sue, if there is a damage to the consignment, because the contract of carriage is between the consignor and the Railway Administration. Secondly, where, however, the property and the goods carried have passed from the consignor to the consignee depends on the facts of each case. The facts of the reported case were that the contract between the seller Factory and the J.C. Mill was that the delivery would be made by the seller at the godown of J.C. Mill. Secondly, where, however, the property and the goods carried have passed from the consignor to the consignee depends on the facts of each case. The facts of the reported case were that the contract between the seller Factory and the J.C. Mill was that the delivery would be made by the seller at the godown of J.C. Mill. The contract further provided that the goods would be despatched by the Railway on the sellers risk upto the godown of J.C. Mill. Ordinarily, the consignment would have been booked in the name of Self but there was some legal defects in booking the consignment in the name of self and therefore J.C. Mill agreed that the consignment might be booked in the Mills name as consignee but it was made clear by the J.C. Mill that the contract would stand ineffective by this implead of consignment and risk, responsibility and liability regarding the consignment would be of the Factory till they were delivered to the J.C. Mill in the godown as agreed and it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that the property in the goods were still with the Factory when fire broke out on the Railway platform and the ordinary rule that if the consignee who can sue prevailed. 8. The facts of the case reported as AIR 1975 Patna 225, Rohtas Industry v. UOI were that the consignment of zip sum was duly despatched in two weeks. The Railway receipt was seized by the consignor to consignee. It was held that mere endorsement of Railway receipt in favour of the consignee cannot be held to be sufficient to pass on the title of the goods from the consignor to the consignee. The factum of payment of price for the goods in question must be established. In the defence of the pleadings and proof with regard to the payment of price of goods in question, it cannot be said that the title had passed on to the consignee. The consignee cannot file a suit for the recovery of amount. The position that emerges out of the aforesaid discussion is that the Railway receipt just entitles the person who is named in it as a consignee or an endorsee to receive the goods. The consignee cannot file a suit for the recovery of amount. The position that emerges out of the aforesaid discussion is that the Railway receipt just entitles the person who is named in it as a consignee or an endorsee to receive the goods. By the terms of the contract of endorsement such a person can even relieve the Railway of its liability but where he has not done so and where the question of suing for loss arises, the principle is that he who has sustained the loss must sue. A bare consignee without title cannot sue the Railway unless and until the title in the goods had passed to him. The question which needs determination in the instant (case) is thus as to whether the title in the goods has passed to the consignee before the damage to the goods were caused or not. In the instant case, there is nothing in the plaint to show that the plaintiff society was the owner of the goods. There is not even a word either in the plaint or in the evidence that the plaintiff had paid the price of the goods in question or that the title in goods had passed to the plaintiff society. The learned counsel for the plaintiff could not controvert the position or proposition of law in any way and in view of the aforesaid factual position and the law produced before me. I have no recourse but to hold that the plaintiff-Company had no locus standi to file the present suit." 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that this appeal is liable to succeed. The position of law with regard to the consignment depends upon facts to facts of each case. The plaintiff-Federation was the consignee. It is well settled that mere consignment endorsement of the railway receipt in favour of the consignee cannot entitle him to file a suit because title in the goods does not pass over to him but if the consignment is for consideration and the consignee has become the owner of the goods and that such consignee has paid a valuable consideration, he is entitled to file a suit and he has locus standi to do so. The third situation is when the title of the goods has already passed over to the purchaser and the consignor has acted as an agent on behalf of the consignee for the purposes of taking the goods only. In such a situation, the title had already passed to the purchaser who was shown as a consignee on the railway receipt before even consignment of the goods. Therefore, such consignee has become the owner of the goods and the consignor has simply acted as an agent on behalf of the purchaser. In the present case, it is proved on record that the Federation has paid the price of the goods contained in the gunny bags and the consignor had simply acted as an agent on behalf of the consignee. In such a situation, the plaintiff-Federation had locus standi to file the suit. I do not subscribe to the reasons given by the learned trial Court that it is not proved on record the plaintiff has not paid the price of the goods or that the title in goods had passed to him. It is abundantly proved from the statement of PW5 District Manager that after taking the delivery, the package bags were auctioned for a sum of Rs. 27,000/- and the Society suffered a loss of Rs. 33,872/-. There is no rebuttal to the evidence. It may be mentioned here that the consignor of the Howrah never came before the Court nor he objected at that point of time that he was the owner of the goods or that he has received the consideration. In this view of the matter, I reverse the findings of the trial Court on issue No 1 since the defendants did not handle the goods in a reasonable manner. The responsibility of the railways is that of the bailee. On account of the negligence committed by the defendant-company, the plaintiff has suffered a loss which is amply proved on the record. 10. Therefore, I grant the money decree in the sum of Rs. 33,872/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till payment in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and against the defendants- respondent. The defendants-respondents shall also bear the cost of the suit as well as this appeal. The counsel fee is assessed at Rs. 1000/-. Decree sheet shall be prepared by the Registry. The defendants-respondents shall also bear the cost of the suit as well as this appeal. The counsel fee is assessed at Rs. 1000/-. Decree sheet shall be prepared by the Registry. Appeal allowed.