Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 655
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Parthivjyoti Saikia, J.
M/S. Bhawani Trading Co.- Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India Represented By The General Manager, N.F. Railway – Respondent
MFA/77 of 2013
Decided On : 14-06-2024
Important Points
The importance of providing evidence of the price of goods in claims for refund for short delivery under the Railways Act.
Subject
Civil Law - Railway Claims
Act Referred
Headnote
Railways Act - Refund of Short Delivery - Lack of Evidence on Price of Goods
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an Original Application seeking refund for short delivery of 1750 kgs of rice. The Tribunal found a short delivery but held that the appellant did not prove the price of rice, leading to a lack of evidence for determining compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court agreed with the respondent's argument that the appellant failed to prove the price of rice, resulting in the Tribunal's inability to ascertain the value of the short delivery. Consequently, the appeal was deemed devoid of merit and dismissed.
Issues: Refund for short delivery, Lack of evidence on price of goods
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence regarding the price of the goods, as required under the Railways Act, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was deemed devoid of merit and dismissed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.K P Maheswari
For the Respondent: Mr.A K Sarkar
JUDGMENT :
Heard Ms. M. Kalilta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs. U. Chakraborty, learned Senior Railway Counsel.
2. This is an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment and order dated 08.03.2013 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in Original Application No.182 of 2002.
3. The appellant filed the Original Application before the Tribunal seeking refund of Rs.17,500/- for short delivery of 1750 kgs of rice @ Rs. 10 per kilogram.
4. The Tribunal agreed that there was a short delivery of 1750 kilograms of rice. The Tribunal held that the appellant did not prove the price of rice and therefore, on account of lack of evidence, the Tribunal could not arrive at a finding regarding compensation which might be payable to the appellant.
5. The learned counsel, Ms. Kalita has submitted that this appeal is based on the law as laid down under Section 127 (2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
6. The learned counsel, Ms. Chakraborty, on the other hand, has submitted that the appellant failed to prove the price of rice before the Tribunal and therefore, the Tribunal arrived at a correct finding.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
8. I have decided to agree with the respondent. The appellant did not prove the price of rice and therefore, the Tribunal could not ascertain the value of 1750 kilograms of rice.
9. I hereby hold that the appeal is devoid of merit and therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. Send back the LCR.
