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.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

1. 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 and the bottom seals of the wagons were found missing and there was leaking of oil. A joint inspection was made and shortage was assessed by dip measurements. A certificate to that effect was issued on 23.04.2007 at the destination station.

5. The respondent served the statutory notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 seeking compensation and refund of overcharge.

6. The respondent claimed that they had sustained a loss of ₹8,71,223/-. According to the respondent, the appellant did not settle the issue. Therefore, they filed the petition under Section 16 of the the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking compensation of ₹8,71,223/- along with interest.

7. After entering appearance, the appellant filed the written statement. Therein they claimed that the consignment was booked at the forwarding station with remarks in the Railway Receipt “said to contain, wagon selected by sender, wagon examined by TXR declared fit and water tight, dip measurement not witnessed by Railway staff, senders weight accepted, packing condition outer not complied”.

8. According to the appellant, the tank wagons were not supervised by the Railway staff at the forwarding station and as such, the question of shortage does not arise. They further claimed that there was no transit delay for which there was no scope of criminal interference enroute. The appellant pleaded that in view of the endorsement in the Railway Receipt, “said to contain” the respondent has to prove entrustment of the consignment and actual quantity to the Railway Administration at the forwarding station

9. Upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the applicant proves the validity of notice under Section 106 of Railways Act, 1989 was served on the respondent? (sic.)

2. Whether the applicant proves that there was shortage vis-à-vis the booked quantity? (sic.)

3. Whether the respondent proves that there was no criminal interference enroute to the wagons? (sic.)

4. Is the applicant entitled to relief?

5. The quantum of relief?

10. At the time of hearing, both sides did not examine any witness. They only relied upon documentary evidence in support of their res