Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
Union of India, Rep. by the General Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon – Appellant
Versus
K.C. Enterprise – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J.
1. Heard Mr. D K Dey, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. M Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This is an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987, preferred by NF Railways, challenging the judgment and award dated 10-05-2016 passed by the Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in Claim Application O.A No. 5/2010 (Old) & O.A No-I/Guwahati/2010/0005 (New).
3. By the said judgment the learned Tribunal directed the Railway Authority to make payment of compensation to the respondent for an amount of Rs. 2,52,611/- (damage of 13150 kg of potatoes) to the claimant/respondent. The present respondent, as the claimant, had preferred a claim application before the learned Tribunal stating that the applicant/opposite party booked a trainload consignment of 850 bags of potatoes (50 kg packing each) on 15.09.2009 under Invoice Number 7760/Railway Receipt 212041708 from DKZ to NGC under trainload condition in safe, sound and secure condition under railway risk rate after meeting all legal and statutory inspections as per railway rules.
4. The wagons containing the consignment were stranded at KIUL for abou
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 railway administration is liable for damages unless proven otherwise, even when consigned goods display inherent defects during transit.
The burden of proof for negligence in non-delivery lies with the consignor when goods are transported at owner's risk rate.
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....
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 consignor is liable to prove loss or damage to goods loaded at their siding without railway supervision under relevant statutory provisions.
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 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.
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
