1. The appellant consigned a parcel of laced cloths to the respondent Railway Company for despatch by train from Nagore to Madura. From the evidence it would seem that the parcel was stolen from the railway van at Trichinopoly station while that van was in a siding. The lower Court has found that there is no positive evidence that the loss was occasioned by the misconduct of any of the company's servants. So that no question of liability of the company for any act of misfeasance arises. I mention this because Mr. Sitarama Rao has argued that Section 75, Railways Act, will not protect the company where the loss has been occasioned by, the misfeasance or misconduct of the Railway Company's servants. The question therefore resolves itself to this : these being goods which were admittedly included in Schedule 2 to the Act, and were over Rs. 100 in value, could the consignor mate the company liable for their loss, he not having made the declaration of their value as required by Section 75 of the Act? The section definitely says that in respect of schedule goods in a parcel or package exceeding Rs. 100 in value the Railway Administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the parcel or package unless the person sending it caused its value and contents to be declared. The section contains no qualification as regards the manner of loss, destruction or deterioration of the parcel, and it seems to me that the word loss' is sufficiently wide to include loss by theft. It has been found as a fact by both the lower Courts that the consignor did not make a declaration of the value of the parcel, though he declared that it contained laced cloths. In these circumstances he did not comply with the requirements of Section 75 and the Railway Company is relieved of liability for the loss of the parcel. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Leave to appeal refused.