JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Karol, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. The appellant is aggrieved by the concurrent rejection of their claim by the Railway Claims Tribunal¹[RCT], Guwahati Bench²[Claim Application No: OA-I-6/2011] in terms of order dated 3rd September 2012 and the Gauhati High Court³[MFA No.1/2013] by judgment dated 17th December 2024.

3. The appellant had entrusted the shipment of 40,444 bags of salt from Chirai Junction (CHIB), Gujarat to Dharmanagar(DMR), Assam on 10th November 2009. However, when the consignment reached DMR, delivery recorded only 38,702 bags i.e. a shortage of 1742 bags. The respondent-Railway Authorities issued a shortage certificate being Serial No.82/77/57 dated 19th March 2010. Accordingly, a claim notice dated 6th April 2010 was filed at the rate of Rs.200 per bag totalling to Rs.3,48,400/-.

“30. Applicant is relying on exhibit R2 series i.e., copies of the transshipment tallies. Reference to the page having no.64 of exhibit R2 shows that at the time of transshipment, it was found that one wagon bearing no. SCBCN 38595 had 1286 bags of salt, wagon bearing no. SE 180044 had 1320 bags, wagon bearing no. SC 28331 had 1205 bags, wagon bearing no. NR 90289 had 1250 bags when it was loaded with 1217 bags as per Railway Receipt and wagon bearing no. SR 43356 had 1240 bags which was allegedly loaded with 1217 bags. Likewise, page no.65 says that wagon bearing no. SE 131794, which was loaded with 1277 bags had 1173 bags, wagon bearing no. 9931188 which was allegedly loaded with 1277 bags had 1342 bags. Page no.66 of exhibit R2 says that wagon bearing no. ERBCN 113457 which was allegedly loaded with 1277 bags had 1331 bags at the time of unloading. The above shows that either there was improper loading or there was criminal interference during transit whereby articles loaded in the above referred wagons were changed to the other wagons. That is a situation which is difficult to comprehend. Transshipment tally is a document by an official during his official activities. It should be treated with some respect. When given respect, it has to be found that case of the applicant that there was loading as contended by him and as stated in exhibit R1 forwarding note and exhibit R4 Railway Receipt, cannot be accepted. In view of that finding, reference to exhibit R3 delivery certificate is not necessary. As that finding is not possible, it is not possible to conclude that there was short delivery.”

4. A statutory appeal MFA No.1 of 2013 was filed before the Gauhati High Court under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987⁴[RCT Act]. It appears that the Court noticed four aspects; (a) the goods were loaded directly from the truck/cart to the wagon by the employees of the consignor; (b) such act of loading was not supervised by any railway staff; (c) sender’s weight was accepted; and (d) packing conditions were not compliant, along with taking note of the fact that the railway receipt had the ‘said to contain’ remark. As such, the appeal was held to be bereft of merit, and accordingly stood dismissed.

5. We have heard Mr. Gunjan Kumar, learned Advocate on Record for the appellant and Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, learned ASG for the respondents.

5.1 The sum and substance of the appellant’s case is that even if the booking was made at owner’s risk, the general obligation cast upon the Railway Authorities, under Section 93 of Railways Act, 1989⁵[1989 Act] could not be done away with; the loading of the goods was to be supervised by a Goods Clerk (violation of Rule 1512 of Indian Railway Commercial Manual⁶[IRCM]) and failure on the part of the respondent cannot be held against the appellant; “said to contain” bookings are only available for “private siding” and this was a case of “railway siding” hence, once a quantity has been mentioned in the receipt, siding cannot be used to deny the claim; Section 97 of the 1989 Act makes it clear that the Railway Authorities, will be liable for negligence even if booking is under “owner’s risk”.

5