Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MALASRI NANDI, J.
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
M/s P.P. Enterprise – Respondent
MFA 77 of 2012
Decided on : 06-03-2024
Railway Claims Tribunal Act - Compensation Claim - Section 23 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, Section 20, Section 110 of the Railways Act - The court discussed the burden of proof in a proceeding before the Claims Tribunal, the power and jurisdiction of the tribunal for summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person, examining him on oath, requiring discovery and production of documents, and receiving evidence on affidavits.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an appeal against the judgment and order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati, which allowed the claim of the respondent as compensation for a consignment that was found short and in damaged condition upon unloading.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Railway Authorities failed to produce essential documents, and the judgment of the Tribunal was based on the alleged failure on the part of the Railway Authority to produce documents. The court set aside the judgment and remitted the records to the Tribunal for passing necessary orders on the application for discovery/production of documents and to decide the claim case in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the failure of the Railway Authorities to produce essential documents, the burden of proof in a proceeding before the Claims Tribunal, and the lack of direction issued to the Railway Authorities for production of the essential documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proving the monetary loss actually sustained lies on the person claiming compensation. The court emphasized the importance of the Railway Authorities producing essential documents and the need for the Tribunal to pass necessary orders for discovery/production of documents.
Final Decision: The judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati, was set aside, and the records were remitted to the Tribunal for further proceedings within a specified time frame. The appeal was allowed with no order as to cost.
JUDGMENT :
None appears for the appellant. Heard Ms. M. Kalita, learned counsel for respondent.
2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment and order dated 17.04.2012 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal at Guwahati Bench in Claim Application No. OA-I/GHY/2002/0179 (old No. O.A.179/02) allowing the claim of the respondent/applicant as compensation amounting to Rs.72,720/- only along with interest @ 6% per annum.
3. The case of the applicant/respondent is that the claimant booked the consignment of 172 katta cartoon in wagon No.72510 from GIMB to New Guwahati under invoice No.4, RR No.974186 dated 29.10.1999 in safe, sound and secured condition under Railway Risk Rate after meeting all legal and statutory inspections as per Railway Rules. At the time of unloading at destination New Guwahati, the applicant/respondent found that wagon seal and card lebels were absent and door was found in open condition. On unloading, in presence of CGS/ NGC and other Railway officers on duty, it was found that 119 katta cartoon in loose condition and total 4040 kg of sugar found short and all the facts were verified by the railway staff on duty and recorded all those description about shortages in the railway records known as “unloading tally book”.
4. It was further alleged that the applicant/respondent was prevented to record the details of the shortage of sugar and deficiencies in the railway delivery book by the CGS/NGC and the delivery Clark in duty on the excuse of one so called railway order of Chief Claim Officer, NF Railway, Maligaon dated 19.02.1991. On the persuasion and protest made by the applicant/respondent, the goods clark and CGS/NGC on duty expressed their inability to allow passing any deficiency remarks on the delivery book about shortage of sugar. Accordingly, the applicant/respondent issued a letter dated 14.11.1999 to CGS/NGC informing about short delivery of booked consignment.
5. The further case of the applicant/respondent is that though the applicant wrote a letter dated 14.11.1999 with a request to issue a short delivery certificate but the CGS/NGC expressed his inability to issue short delivery certificate in the prescribed form by stating that as per the instructions from headquarter, no such delivery certificate could be issued where the goods booked under the caption “Said to contain”, RR remarks. Subsequently, the applicant/respondent also issued several letters to the railway authority to issue short delivery certificate but the appellant failed to issue the same. Finding no other alternative, the applicant/respondent has preferred the claim application for recovery of compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati amounting to Rs.72,720/- as per market rate.
6. The railway authority contested the claim by filing written statement. In their defense, the Railway Authorities challenged the very basis of the claims stating that the claim case was based on railway receipts under the category of “Said to contain”. This means that the quantity and quality of the goods booked by the claimant/respondent were as per their declaration unilaterally made and the employees of the railway did not verify the correctness or otherwise of such declaration made by the consignors. Referring to the respective railway receipts, it was claimed that the goods were directly loaded in the wagon/train by the consignors from their trucks. It was mentioned in the RR itself that the booking was under the category of “Said to contain” and as such the claim petition is not maintainable.
7. The appeal was admitted by this Court and records were called for. I have perused the record of the claim case as well as the judgment of the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati.
8. The learned Tribunal by the judgment passed on 17.04.2012 allowed the claim of the respondent/applicant holding that the notice served under Section 106 of the Act was valid and the applicant
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 ....
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.
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.
The necessity of providing evidence to substantiate claims in railway transport cases under the Railways Act.
Point of Law : Tribunal came to a finding that Respondent has not proved that there was shortage at time of loading and in view of non-filing of any of documents and evidence to prove that transhipme....
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.
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.
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....
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
