Point of Law: Rules further provide that seals and labels should be carefully preserved for six months and then to be destroyed. In the instant case, claimant in its notice under Section 106 of the Act, claimed damages because of non-maintaining of wagon seal in proper condition, no card label etc. which was to be maintained, but no any response/reply made by the Railway Department against such claim.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. G. Goswami, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant Railway as well as Ms. M. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent.

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.01.2011, passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati, in Claim Application No. OAI/GHY/2004/0441 (Old No. 441/04), whereby the respondent/appellant was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 57,375/- (Rupees fifty seven thousands three hundred seventy five) only along with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing within three months, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum till realization. The Railway shall also pay proportionate costs of application fee Rs. 2500/- and Legal Practitioner’s fee of Rs. 1500/-.

3. According to the applicant, a clubbed consignment (300 packets of dried peas and 400 packets of Arhar Dal) was booked from DKZ to NGC vide Invoice No. 1966, RR No. 340314, on 24.03.2003. At destination, as per Delivery Certificate, 45 packets of Arhar Dal found short. As per applicant @ Rs. 25.50 per kg. the compensation amount comes to Rs. 57,375/- for which the applicant has filed the claim petition and stated that the respondent railway is fully liable for the abovementioned loss.

4. Upon receipt of notice of the application, the respondent filed their written reply, wherein they have stated that the notice, U/s. 106 of the Indian Railway Act was received in time, but the whole contents of the notice is voluntarily denied and the application is liable to be dismissed. It is also stated that the question of negligence and misconduct does not arise, as the consignment was loaded by the sender at the forwarding station and unloaded by the consignee at the destination station. Moreover, the consignment was booked by the sender at the forwarding station under the remarks in the railway receipt containing “loading and unloading done by the sender, train load condition complied with, directly loaded from truck to wagon, quantity and contents not checked by Railway Staff, senders wt. accepted” and thus the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The respondent also pleaded that the nature of relief as sought for in the application is not admitted since there is no contract between the parties in this case to pay cost and interest, the applicant is not entitled for the same and as such the application is liable to be dismissed with cost.

5. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(1) Whether the Notice U/s. 106 of the Railways Act was served by the applicant in time?

(2) Whether the applicant hold legal title to demand compensation?

(3) Whether the respondent has delivered the entire consignment intact at destination as per RR?

(4) Whether the applicant proves that they have not receive the full consignment at destination?

(5) What Relief? What Order?

6. Both the parties filed various documents in support of their respective claim.

7. After going through the documents available before it and hearing arguments of learned counsel for both sides, the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati decided all the issues in favour of the applicant and passed the impugned judgment and order, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/respondent Railway.

8. The grounds taken by the appellant in the present appeal is that inter-alia, that the learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration the correct factual and legal aspect of the matter in deciding the matter, that the learned Tribunal, while passing the impugned judgment has failed to take into consideration the objection raised by the Railway towards the preliminary objection in respect of sufficiency and validity of notice made under Section 106 of the Railway Act, etc. etc.

9. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides and perused the documents available in the record.

10. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the cl