Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
PARTHIV JYOTI SAIKIA, J.
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
Dinesh Sales Corporation - Respondent
MFA No. 61 of 2013
Decided on : 10-12-2021
Railways Act, 1989 - Section 106 - Compensation - Demanding repayment of the charge paid by him - Notice of claim for compensation and refund of overcharge - Whether notice under section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 was served by applicant to the respondent is in time and maintainable – Held, This court is of the opinion that the Tribunal had correctly appreciated the evidence, the connected legal provisions and thereby arrived at a correct finding - The present appeal is devoid of merit and, therefore, there is no necessity of interfering with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal - Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.1.2013 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in O.A. I/GHY/2004/0074 (Old No. O.A. 74/04).
2. The respondent booked Railway wagons for carriage of 26,458 bags each containing 75 kilograms of salt and 5,865 bags each containing 50 kilograms of salt. The respondent paid the required freight charge. Necessary railway receipts (A/1 to A/4) were issued). There was short delivery at the destination point. Therefore, the respondent served a notice under section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 upon the railways.
3. The respondent staked its claim for compensation in the Railway Claims Tribunal.
4. The learned Tribunal framed the following four issues:
(ii) Whether the respondent prove that there was over loading?
(iii) Was there was any shortage as alleged by the applicant?
(iv) Relief and Order?
5. The respondent proved its claim, that it had booked a certain amount of goods, by submitting stock return of Deputy Director of Food & Civil Supplies (A) Department, dated 5.8.2003 (A/19).
6. The appellant neither submitted delivery report nor issued delivery certificate before the learned Tribunal.
7. After hearing both sides, The Tribunal directed the present appellant to pay Rs 1,41,850 as compensation along with other ancillary reliefs.
8. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides.
9. The respondents exhibited the Railway receipts as Ext. A/1 to Ext. A/4. Until the Railway receipts are handed over to the consignee till then the consignor is the rightful owner of the consignment. When the Railway receipts are handed over to the consignee then the consignees attains all rights and liabilities of the consignor. Whenever there is loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of goods, then the consignee shall be entitled to claim compensation from the Railways, provided he first issues notice to the Railways under section 106 of the Railways Act.
10. Here in this case, the Railways did not submit any documents to show that the consignor did not actually load the quantity of goods as claimed. On the other hand, the respondent proved the amount of load, loaded into the wagons by submitting the stock return by submitting the order of the Deputy Director of Food & Civil Supplies (A) Department, dated 5.8.2006 which is exhibited as A/19.
11. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the Tribunal had correctly appreciated the evidence, the connected legal provisions and thereby arrived at a correct finding. The present appeal is devoid of merit and, therefore, there is no necessity of interfering with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal.
12. The appeal is dismissed and disposed of accordingly.
13. Send down the LCR.
The burden of proof under Sec. 65 of the Railways Act, 1989 lies on the consignor, consignee, or endorsee to prove the number of packages stated in the Railway Receipt.
Notice under Section 106 was issued to the General Manager within the stipulated period of six months and as such there cannot be any violation of rule and the delay is inconsequential.
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 da....
The burden of proving the monetary loss sustained lies on the person claiming compensation, and the failure to produce essential documents can influence the court's decision.
Under the Railways Act, 1989, the burden of proving monetary loss in claims lies with the claimant, and references to 'said to contain' do not imply admission of liability by the Railways.
The burden of proof for monetary loss in Railway claims lies with the claimant, and mere assertions without evidence do not satisfy legal requirements for compensation.
The burden of proving the monetary loss actually sustained lies on the person claiming compensation, and the Railway Authorities are required to produce essential documents in claim cases before the ....
Railway administration can be held liable for damages in transit even under owner’s risk terms if negligence is proven, particularly regarding perishable goods.
Compliance with statutory notice requirements under Section 106 of the Railways Act is essential for valid claims concerning compensation and overcharges.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
