The railway administration is liable for damages unless proven otherwise, even when consigned goods display inherent defects during transit.

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 application that a consignment of cement containing 25,140 bags of cement was booked under the Railway Risk Rate of freight under Invoice/R.R. No. 06/212000715 dated 28.07.2009, which was made over to the Railway Administration for its safe carriage and delivery to the consignee from LIPL/AKT to SPTR intercepted at NLP at Railway Risk Rate. The said train note consignment was shipped from BG to MG at Railway Trans-shipment Point at Rangiya for MG destination SPTR (Silapathar). According to the claimant/respondent, all the BG wagons of the train arrived at the trans-shipment point without having Railway seals and card labels and all the BG wagons were in open door condition. The suit consignment also arrived at the destination point after a delay of more than 70 days without seals and door opened condition. At the time of unloading, the MG wagons were found roof leaky and in a body broken condition as a result of which 5745 bags of cement were found wet and in a damaged condition. The damage bags were kept in the Railway premises for granting assessment delivery. On 17/18 10.2009, the loss was assessed by the Railway after a delay of about another 20 days and as such, the total loss was estimated to the cost of 2731 bags of cement. Accordingly, the respondent/claimant filed the application claiming a sum of Rs. 9,52,436/- along with application fee and advocate’s fee and pendant elite interest.

5. The claim application was contested by the Railway by filing their written statement. It was the contention of the N.F. Railways that the service of notice under Section 106 of the RAILWAYS ACT , is not valid as it was served by some Kedar Prasad on behalf of the M/S G.P. Sales Corporation without any power of attorney. It was also contended that the loading of the suit consignment was not supervised by the appellant/N.F. Railways. The N.F. Railway also contended that the subject consignment arrived at the shipment point with seal rivet intact condition without any interference en-route and received 115 bags damaged for which the N.F. Railway was not liable for the alleged loss. The N.F. Railway contended that the alleged damage to the goods/cement bag was due to in