Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
General Manager N.F. Railway, Assam – Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Pancham International Ltd., Assam – Respondent
MFA No.15 Of 2008, MC No.221 of 2008
Decided On : 01-08-2024
RAILWAY CLAIMS - SHORT DELIVERY OF CONSIGNMENT - The court found that the Railway Claims Tribunal's judgment was not based on sufficient evidence, as the respondent failed to provide witness testimony to substantiate the claim of monetary loss due to short delivery of sugar bags. The court emphasized the necessity of evidence in proving claims under Section 110 of the Railways Act, leading to the conclusion that the Tribunal's decision was unsustainable in law.
Fact of the Case:
A consignment of 1173 bags of sugar was booked for transportation, but there was a short delivery of 699 kgs due to loose and torn bags. The respondent claimed Rs.9,786/- from the Railways for the loss.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal's judgment was cryptic and lacked evidentiary support, as the respondent did not examine any witnesses to prove the claim of loss.
Issues: Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal's decision was supported by adequate evidence to substantiate the claim for short delivery of goods.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it is the claimant's duty to prove the monetary loss sustained, and without evidence, the Tribunal's judgment cannot be upheld.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal's judgment was set aside due to lack of evidence.
JUDGMENT :
(Parthivjyoti Saikia, J.) :
Heard Mr. G. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent.
2. This is an appeal under Section 23 of the of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the judgment and order dated 27.08.07 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in Claim Application No.325 of 2004.
3. On 31.01.03, a consignment of 1173 bags of sugar, each bag containing 50 kg. were booked for transportation from UDGR to DMR via LMG-TPT. As per the Delivery Certificate dated 16.02.2004, there was short delivery of 699 kgs. due to loose and torn bags. The value of the short delivery was valued at a price of Rs.14/- per kilogram.
4. The respondent claimed Rs.9,786/- from the Railways.
5. The Railways claimed that as per the Railway Receipt, the consignment was booked as “said to contain” and the loading was not supervised by Railway staff.
6. The Tribunal directed the Railways to pay the aforesaid sum along with interest @ 6% per annum.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, the present appeal has been filed.
8. I have considered the submissions of Mr. Goswami.
9. Referring to Section 110 of the Railways Act of 1989, Mr. Goswami has pointed out that it is the duty of the respondent to prove that it had sustained monetary loss. According to Mr. Goswami, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is not based on evidence because the respondent did not examine any witness to prove his case.
10. This Court is of the opinion that the submission of Mr. Goswami has force in it. The judgment of the Tribunal consisting of two paragraphs is extremely cryptic. On a plain reading of the judgment, it appears that the judgment is not based on any evidence.
11. Such a judgment is not sustainable in law.
12. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 27.08.07 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in Claim Application No.325 of 2004, is set aside. The appeal is disposed of. Send back the LCR.
The necessity of providing evidence to substantiate claims in railway transport cases under the Railways Act.
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 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.
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....
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.
The importance of providing evidence of the price of goods in claims for refund for short delivery under the Railways Act.
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.
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
