A consignment of copper scrap dispatched from Lahore in May 1989 finally reached the end of its legal journey—37 years later—with the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling that the insurer failed to prove the loss had occurred on the Indian Railways network.The litigation, arising out of a cross-border consignment dispatched before the Railways Act, 1989, came into force, remained alive for decades before Justice Pankaj Jain finally brought it to a close.The dispute dates back to May 4, 1989, when a company in Lahore dispatched 106 bags of copper scrap by rail to Amritsar.But when the wagon was unloaded in India, railway authorities found that nine bags were missing. Several other bags had been found open, and the consignment was short by 1,104 kilograms. The goods had been insured.After reimbursing the consignee for the loss by paying Rs 36,732, the insurance company obtained a letter of subrogation and stepped into the consignee\’s shoes to recover the amount from the Railways.Its claim, however, was rejected by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in 1992. Challenging that decision, the insurer approached the High Court, where the appeal remained pending for more than three decades.Before the High Court, the insurer argued that the Railways could not escape liability unless they established that “reasonable foresight and care” had been exercised during the carriage of the goods.Its counsel referred to the “Railways Act, 1989,” to contend that the railway administration would not be relieved of its responsibility even in cases where loss, destruction, damage, deterioration, or non-delivery was proven “under the exceptions carved out,” unless it was established that it used reasonable foresight and care in the carriage of the goods.The counsel submitted that the onus was upon the railways to prove that the consignment was lost despite the railways having used reasonable foresight and care in its carriage.The Railways, on the other hand, maintained that the consignment had originated in Pakistan, the forwarding station at Lahore had sealed the wagon in the presence of the consignor, and the wagon reached India with those seals intact.They contended that there was no evidence to show the shortage had occurred after the wagon entered the Indian railway system. The Bench, during the course of the hearing, was told that the Tribunal relied upon Section 76(E) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, to hold that railways could not be held liable since the loss occurred in the territory of Pakistan.After hearing rival contentions, Justice Jain observed that the consignment was booked on May 4, 1989, and a shortage certificate was issued on May 31, 1990. The Railways Act, 1989, was not applicable as it came into effect from July 1, 1990.Quoting the statutory requirement, Justice Jain observed: “Where the goods are being carried from a place outside India to a place in India by the railway, the administration can be held responsible under the provisions of Chapter VII of the 1890 Act for loss, destruction, damage, or deterioration of goods only if it is proved by the owner of the goods that such loss, destruction, damage, or deterioration arose on the railway of the railway administration.” Justice Jain added that it was incumbent upon the appellant to prove that the loss occurred on the railway administered by Indian Railways.”Once the wagon was received by Indian Railways in Indian Territory, it was incumbent upon the railways to check whether the original wagon seals are intact or not. Counsel for the appellant has not disputed the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the original wagon seals were produced,” the court further observed.Applying that principle, Justice Jain added: “This Court finds no reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the Tribunal rejecting the claim of the appellant, holding that the appellant failed to prove that the loss was caused on the railways administered by Indian Railways. Finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is ordered to be dismissed.”