Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 379
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
M/s Gajendra Raut - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India - Respondent
MFA No. 252 of 2019
Decided On : 20-02-2026
Important Points
Subject
Transportation - Railways
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Locus Standi - The appellant had locus standi to file the application as endorsee of the consignment, reflecting authority from the original consignee. (Paras 9, 20)
Facts of the case:
Appellant booked 34 bags of Bonsum Dry, which were not delivered to the destination. Despite issuing notice under Section 106, the Railways failed to inform him of the consignment’s seizure by the Forest Department for five years.
Findings of Court:
The Railways did not exercise reasonable foresight and care as required by law; failure to inform resulted in loss to the appellant.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the railway authorities were liable for non-delivery given the legal seizure of the consignment.
Ratio Decidendi: It was concluded that the railway authorities could not evade liability merely due to a legal seizure unless they proved adequate foresight and care in their duties; their negligence led to the appellant's loss.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Divyansh Rathi,Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. B. Sharma, Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments presented by the appellant. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. arguments presented by the respondent. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 4. court's analysis of the legal principles. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. ratio decidendi: liability for non-delivery. (Para 28) |
| 6. final judgment and order. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT AND ORDER :
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
[1] Heard Mr. D. Rathi, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Standing Counsel, N.F. Railways.
[2] This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been filed by the appellant, Shri Gajendra Raut, impugning the judgment and order dated 14.08.2019, passed in Original Application No. I-42/2013(Old) by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, whereby, the claim filed by the present appellant was dismissed.
[3] The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that the appellant had filed an Original Application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,12,806/- along with interest for non-delivery of 34 bags of Bonsum Dry, weighing about 1,990 kgs, which was booked under Parcel Way Bill No. 235260, dated 18.04.2013, from Dimapur to Kanpur Central, under Transit Pass No.2937, the consignee had also obtained a certificate, to that extent, for permission of extraction of Dalchini (Cinnamonum), Bonsum Bark, under Liphanyan working scheme areas, under Wokha Forest Division.
[4] When the aforesaid consignment was not delivered to the appellant, he issued a notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 to the General Manager, N.F. Railway, Guwahati, as well as to the General Manager, N. C. Railway, stating that the consignment of 34 bags of Dry Bonsum weighing about 1990 kgs were not received by the him at the destination station. However, when no response was received by the appellant to the notice issued by him to the Railway Authority, he approached the Railway Claims Tribunal by filing the aforementioned Original Application claiming compensation of Rs. 1,12,806/- for non-delivery of the consignment booked by the appellant.
[5] The said Original Application was registered as Original Application No. I-42/2013 (Old) and OA (I)/GHY/2013/0033 (New). The present appellant claiming to be the endorsee had also submitted an original copy of affidavit cum letter of authority cum disclaimer certificate dated 29.06.2013 from the original consignee, namely, Shri Jitendra Srivastav along with the Original Application.
[6] The Railways (present appellant) contested the claim of the appellant before the Railways Tribunal by filing a written statement wherein, they challenged the locus standi of the present appellant to file the Original Application. They have also taken the plea of insufficiency of notice under Section 106 as well as defence of Section 93 (d) of the Railways Act, 1989.
[7] On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Railway Claims Tribunal framed following issues: -
1. Whether the case is properly verified, signed and filed?
2. Whether statutory legal notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 has been duly served?
3. Whether the claimant is entitled to the amount as claimed on account of negligence, misconduct on behalf of the Railways?
4. Relief?”
[8] Ultimately, by judgment dated 14.08.2019, the Original Application filed by the present appellant was dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal. The aforesaid judgment has been impugned in this appeal.
[9] Mr. D. Rathi, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the present appellant is the endorsee of the railway receipt by the original consignee and hence is entitled to file the Original Application before the Claims Tribunal as well as the instant appeal. He submits that on the back side of the Parcel Way Bill issued by the respondent authorities, the original consignee has endorsed the name of the pr
