Judgment L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. This letters patent appeal is filed against the judgment, dated 5.6.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in AS No. 1756 of 1986. The said appeal in turn arose out of the decree, dated 16.10.1985, passed by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Proddatur, in OS No. 33 of 1983. 2. The first respondent filed the suit against the appellants (defendants 1 and 2) for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,87,556/- towards damages. He pleaded that with an intention to supply groundnut solvent extract oil to M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited, Kolkatta (the 4th respondent herein), he booked a wagon (tanker) with the South Central Railway (the 1st appellant herein). According to them, a wagon bearing No. SRTP 37212 was allotted and the same was loaded with groundnut solvent extract oil through their agent. The complaint of the plaintiff was that when the wagon reached 4th respondent, the analysis of sample drawn from it revealed that what is contained in it is rice bran solvent extract oil, and accordingly the consignment was rejected. The plaintiff is said to have verified from the loading station at Yerraguntla and the Station Master is said to have informed him that on account of the fact that a consignment of rice bran oil was booked on the same day by the 2nd respondent herein (3rd defendant) destined to the 3rd respondent (4th defendant), that too through the same agent, a mistake has occurred wherein the consignment of ground nut oil was sent to Bombay and the other one with rice bran oil was sent to Kolkatta. Alleging the negligence on the part of the appellants, the 1st respondent filed the suit. 3. The suit was contested by the appellants herein. The fact that the 1st respondent booked a wagon for transport of groundnut oil was admitted. However, according to them, the wagon that was booked in favour of the 1st respondent was with the Number 36410' and though in the Railway Receipt it was mentioned that the wagon is loaded with groundnut oil, it ultimately emerged that it was loaded with the rice bran oil. They further pleaded that it was on account of the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, that the groundnut oil was received by the 3rd respondent, whereas the consignee at Kolkatta rejected the consignment on the ground that it is rice bran oil. 4. They further pleaded that it was on account of the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, that the groundnut oil was received by the 3rd respondent, whereas the consignee at Kolkatta rejected the consignment on the ground that it is rice bran oil. 4. Through its judgment, dated 16.10.1985, the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that there was negligence on the part of the 1st respondent in verifying the loading of the goods. Therefore, the 1st respondent filed AS No. 1756 of 1986. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the said appeal, through the impugned judgment. Hence this L.P.A. 5. Sri T. Ramakrishna Rao, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that it was the duty of the 1st respondent to verify whether the goods are properly loaded and the consignment is properly destinated. He contends that the 1st respondent was not aware of the particulars of the wagon allotted to him, and on account of the fact that the same agent loaded the groundnut oil in one wagon and rice bran oil in the other on the same day at same place, mistake as to forwarding occurred, and that the Railway Administration is not responsible for the same. He submits that the trial Court has taken correct view of the matter, on appreciation of the evidence on record and the learned Single Judge was not justified in decreeing the suit. He placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Hari Sao v. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 843 . 6. None appears for the 1st respondent. 7. Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the 5th respondent-Insurance Company submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly excluded the 5th respondent from the liability, since what was insured with it was groundnut oil, whereas the one transported to the 4th respondent at Kolkatta was found to be the rice bran oil. 8. Before the trial Court, except the appellants herein, rest of the defendants remained ex parte. 9. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: (i) Had the plaintiff suffered damages to the suit consignment owing to the negligence and misconduct of the 1st defendant? (ii) Are the contents of the suit consignment wrongly delivered to D4? (iii) Is the plaintiff entitled to recover the damage claimed from the defendants? (ii) Are the contents of the suit consignment wrongly delivered to D4? (iii) Is the plaintiff entitled to recover the damage claimed from the defendants? (iv) Is the claim preceded by valid notice? (v) Is the suit preceded by statutory notice? (vi) Is the suit maintainable? (vii) Are the plaint stated valuation and Court-fee paid correct? (viii) To what relief? 10. On behalf of 1st respondent, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and extensive documentary evidence in the form of Exs.A1 to A41 were filed. On behalf of the appellants, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B11 were filed. 11. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. In AS No. 1756 of 1986, this Court framed only one point for its consideration, namely, 'Whether the appellants can be held to be negligent and liable to pay the damages for the loss of the goods?' and the appeal was allowed. 12. We are of the view that the following points arise for consideration in this L.P.A:- (1) Whether there was any negligence or mistake on the part of the 1st respondent or the appellants herein that resulted in the wagon loaded with rice bran oil instead of groundnut oil, being sent to 4th respondent at Kolkatta? (2) Whether the findings recorded by the trial Court on the liability of the appellants herein can be sustained in law? 13. Point No.1: On the same day i.e., on 31.3.1983, two wagons were booked for transport of groundnut oil by one, and rice bran oil by the other, from Yerraguntla Railway Station of South Central Railway. The loading and booking is said to be through one agent. Though the 1st respondent stated in the plaint that Wagon No. 37212 was allotted to him, the appellants pleaded that the wagon allotted to him is with the number 36410'. The evidence on record i.e., the Railway Receipt issued in respect of Wagon No. 36410 discloses that it is loaded with groundnut oil, destined to Kolkatta (Kankinara) to be delivered to 4th respondent. 14. The 1st respondent could have been held negligent in case he was issued a Railway Receipt in his name to the effect that Wagon No. 36410 is loaded with rice bran oil for being delivered at Kolkatta and he did not take necessary steps for rectification thereof. 14. The 1st respondent could have been held negligent in case he was issued a Railway Receipt in his name to the effect that Wagon No. 36410 is loaded with rice bran oil for being delivered at Kolkatta and he did not take necessary steps for rectification thereof. When the contents of Railway Receipt delivered to him were as per his order, there was no occasion for him, either to protest, or to take corrective steps. It is only when the wagon reached Kolkatta, the fact that it was loaded with rice bran oil was noticed. Immediately, the 1st respondent contacted the Station Master/In-charge of Yerraguntla Railway Station. Exs.A23, A24 and A26 reveal that the Station Master accepted the mistake in the process of forwarding the wagons. In the written statement, the appellants pleaded that the information given or the stand taken by the Station Master was contrary to the record. Even if that is true, a clear case of negligence on the part of a responsible employee of the Railway Administration, comes to be established. 15. The principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court and relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants become relevant here. In Hari Sao v. State of Bihar (supra), the Supreme Court dealt with various provisions of the Railways Act and in particular Sections 58 and 74. Their Lordships took the view that in case a consignment is covered by Section 58, the Railway Administration becomes responsible for any loss or damage to the goods and if it is under Section 74, where the goods are accepted for transport at owner's risk, the Railway Administration cannot be held responsible, unless it was proved that the loss or damage to the goods caused is due to the negligence or omission on the part of the Railway Administration. 16. In the instant case, even if the goods are said to have been booked at owner's risk, it clearly emerges that the wrong delivery was on account of the mistake or negligence of the Railway Administration. No other proof is needed for this purpose, once the Station Master of the place, where the goods were booked, admitted his negligence through a written communication. As a matter of fact, the negligence was evident on the face of it. 17. No other proof is needed for this purpose, once the Station Master of the place, where the goods were booked, admitted his negligence through a written communication. As a matter of fact, the negligence was evident on the face of it. 17. The learned Counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgments of other High Courts i.e., in Union of India v. Universal Traders Corporation, AIR 1983 Ker. 173 and K.R. Sarda & Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1968 MP 199 , wherein it was held that if there is any discrepancy as to the quantity of goods, the administration cannot be held responsible, particularly when the goods are booked of “said to contain” process. In the case on hand, the complaint was not about the quantity of the goods delivered. It was about the very category and nature of the goods. When the documents issued by the appellants clearly disclose that what is booked and loaded in the wagon is groundnut oil, they cannot avoid the liability when it ultimately emerged that a totally different product was loaded in it. 18. Whatever may have been the circumstances under which a cross forwarding of the wagons has taken place, at least when it was noticed that the goods of the 1st respondent i.e., groundnut oil was delivered to the 4th respondent (3rd defendant), immediate steps ought to have been taken for recovery of the value of that product. For the convenience of the appellants, not only the owner and consigner of the rice bran oil but also the wrongful recipient of the groundnut oil were very much parties to the suit. They could have pressed for a decree against them. Except stating that the 1st respondent was not careful in the matter, they did not take any steps. We, therefore, answer this point in favour of the 1st respondent. 19. Point No.2: The trial Court did take note of the fact that none other than the Station Master of Yerraguntla Railway Station admitted the negligence through his communications in Exs.A23, A24 and A26, and it was on account of the wrong switching over of the wagons during transmit. Nothing more was needed to fix the responsibility upon the appellants than that. However, by jumping to wrong conclusions and assumptions, the trial Court held the 1st respondent guilty of negligence. Nothing more was needed to fix the responsibility upon the appellants than that. However, by jumping to wrong conclusions and assumptions, the trial Court held the 1st respondent guilty of negligence. An inherent contradiction emerges when the trial Court permitted the 1st respondent to proceed against the respondents 2 and 3 herein. When those parties are very much before the trial Court, it ought to have undertaken a necessary exercise. It is not as if that those respondents are not amenable to its jurisdiction or that the matter has to be decided by any other forum. The various findings recorded by the trial Court are contrary to the record and settled principles of law. 20. The learned Single Judge has examined the matter purely on the basis of the record and held that the appellants and respondents 2 and 3 herein are jointly and severally liable for the suit amount. Adequate deduction was given to the amount that was recovered by the 1st respondent by selling the goods at Kolkatta. We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Once the appellants are held jointly and severally liable, it shall always be open to them to take steps against the respondents 2 and 3 herein. We answer this point accordingly. 21. The letters patent appeal is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand disposed of accordingly.