IMPORTANT POINT
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.

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 16.08.2010 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal at Guwahati Bench in Claim Application No. OA-I/GHY/2001/0433 (old No. O.A.433/2001).

3. The case of the applicant/respondent is that two consignments of 1375 + 1375 tins of R-S oil was booked from Rajkot to NGC under invoice No.5 and 6 RR No. 886614 and 886615 dated 14-19.10.1998. At destination 1956 kgs of R.S. Oil found short. As per shortage damage certificate, the shortage was also admitted. The applicant has claimed @ Rs.44.43 per kg of R.S. Oil and at this rate, the compensation amount comes to Rs. 86,905/-for which the application was filed before the Claims Tribunal by stating that the Railway Authority was fully liable for the said loss.

4. The appellant as respondent filed written statement wherein they denied the title, service validity and sufficiency of notice under Section 106 of Railways Act. The Railway authority also stated that the consignment was booked under the caption “said to contain” as such the claim case is not maintainable and hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim case.

5. In the judgment, the learned Railway Claims Tribunal has held that the consignment was booked on 14-19.10.1998 and notice under Section 106 of the Act was served on 04.10.2001 which was received by the respondent on the same date. Therefore, the notice was served in time.

6. The learned RCT also held that it was established that entire consignment was not delivered at destination. The same fact has been mentioned in the application which was further affirmed in the affidavit. For the loss, the applicant had requested to issue a short certificate and also wanted a remark in the delivery book but neither the short certificate was issued nor the claim was settled.

7. In the judgment, it was also mentioned by the tribunal that F/Note has not been submitted by the respondent though the applicant prayed for production of F/Note, loading tally, transit record, seal and card lebels etc.

8. The further case of the applicant/respondent is that though the applicant wrote a letter 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. 86,905/- as per market rate.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. The learne