Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT,(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
Union Of India Represented By The General Manager, N.F Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati – Appellant
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
Heard Mrs. U. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. M. Sarma, the learned counsel representing 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 27.06.2014 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in O.A. No.1362 of 2007.
3. The respondent filed the application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking compensation on account of short delivery of S.K.O (Superior Kerosene Oil) booked by them.
4. The respondent booked 48 BTPN wagons for transportation of SKO in sound condition under Railway Risk Rate. The consignment was loaded under supervision of Railways on verification of quantity loaded by dip measurement and freight was realized accordingly. The consignment was booked on 19.02.2007 vide Railway Receipt No.03/212000419 from Rajbandh to TXOT (IOC siding, Tinsukia). On arrival of the wagons at the destination Station and at the time of unloading, it was found that out of the wagons, 38 numbers of BTPN Tank wagons was without seals suggesting criminal interference enroute. Both the top
The burden of proof for monetary loss in Railway claims lies with the claimant, and mere assertions without evidence do not satisfy legal requirements for compensation.
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.
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.
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.
The burden of proof for negligence in non-delivery lies with the consignor when goods are transported at owner's risk rate.
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 ....
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.
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....
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
