Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MARLI VANKUNG
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
G.P. Sales Corporation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MARLI VANKUNG, J.
Heard Mrs. U. Chakraborty, learned Special Senior Railway Advocate for the appellant. Also heard Ms. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant.
2. This is an appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the Judgment & Order dated 29.11.2011, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Gauhati Bench in Case No. O.A-1/33/2010 filed by the present respondent as the applicant, claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 348.75/- per bag for 2731 bags of cement, which were damaged during the trans-shipment of the said goods.
3. The learned Claims Tribunal had allowed the claim application and ordered that the claimant/respondent was entitled to get a sum of Rs. 7,51,025/- along with Rs. 5709/- as application fee and Rs. 2000/- as advocate fee. The appellant/ Railway was directed to pay the decreetal amount to the claimant/respondent within 2 (two) months from the date of the impugned order, failing which the amount was to carry simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization. Aggrieved, the N.F. Railway has filed the instant appeal.
4. Brief facts of the case is that the respondent had filed a claim
The railway administration is liable for damages unless proven otherwise, even when consigned goods display inherent defects during transit.
Railway administration can be held liable for damages in transit even under owner’s risk terms if negligence is proven, particularly regarding perishable goods.
The burden of proof for negligence in non-delivery lies with the consignor when goods are transported at owner's risk rate.
The consignor is liable to prove loss or damage to goods loaded at their siding without railway supervision under relevant statutory provisions.
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 Railway Administration is liable for non-delivery of goods delivered to unauthorized persons, confirming the Tribunal's jurisdiction and the legal obligations under the Railway and Contract Acts.
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.
Railway authorities cannot evade liability for non-delivery of goods despite legal seizure unless they demonstrate reasonable foresight and care; negligence in informing the claimant about the seizur....
The court confirmed that timely notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act is essential for claiming damages, while emphasizing shared liability between consignor and Railway for delays affecting p....
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
