Knox and Aikman, JJ.:— This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs, who are now appellants) for damages on account of goods detained, and for the value of a package of goods alleged by them to have been delivered to the defendant, the Oudh and Rohilkhand Railway, on the 28th of January, 1895, at the station of Cawnpore, for despatch to Bareilly. The allegation of the appellants is that the package was delivered to the defendant, but never reached its destination. The defendant denies delivery. It is found that the goods now missing did pass on to the Railway premises. But the defendant contends that this does not amount to delivery, and that in any case the defendant is not responsible for the loss of the goods brought on the Railway premises, unless they have been weighed and accepted and a printed receipt granted for the same by a duly authorized employé of the Railway. In support of this contention the defendant refers the Court to paragraph 50 to be found at page 14 of what are called Goods Tariff Rules, dated the 1st of January, 1895. This paragraph has been put forward and treated as a general rule made by the Railway Company under section 47 of Act No. IX of 1890, clause (b). All that we have to see is, whether it is a rule consistent with Act No. IX of 1890. Presumably it has received the sanction of the Governor-General in Council and been printed in the Gazette of India. No question upon these points has been raised. Indeed it is not alleged, except in a side way, that it is inconsistent with the Act. The learned vakil who appeared for the appellants referred us to section 42, sub-section (1), and contended that in making the rule the Railway Administration was not, according to its powers, affording all reasonable facilities for the receiving, forwarding, and delivering of traffic. One obvious answer to this is, that the rule in question, or one similar to it, appears to have found place in rules made by other railway companies. The only point taken in the memorandum of appeal is based upon an expression of opinion given by the lower appellate Court to the effect that the rule is inequitable. We have not to see whether a rule is or is not inequitable if it is found to be a rule made consistently with the Act, and duly sanctioned and published as required by the Act. The decision of the case is in accordance with the principle laid down in Slim v. The Great Northern Railway Company . We think the plaintiffs' suit was properly dismissed. The pleas taken in appeal fail, and the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.