Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Gajendra Raut – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
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
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.
The burden of proof for negligence in non-delivery lies with the consignor when goods are transported at owner's risk rate.
The Railway Claims Tribunal had territorial jurisdiction, and the Railways' failure to follow procedures for protecting the consignment from damage justified the award of compensation to the responde....
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.
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....
An endorsee of a railway receipt, by virtue of the endorsement alone, is not entitled to maintain a suit for the loss against the railway.
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....
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
