Honble PANWAR, J.–This is appeal is directed against the order dated 14.11.1990 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Camp at Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal), whereby application (suit) filed by the appellant against the respondents was dismissed.

(2). Briefly stated facts which are necessary for decision of this appeal are that; a suit was filed by the appellant before the Court of District Judge, Jodhpur for recovery of Rs.32,872.35 which was transferred to the Tribunal established under Section 24 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The case as set up by the appellant before the Tribunal is that; appellant firm had booked bales of cloth on 23.7.1986 by parcel train from Jodhpur to Hindaun City vide PWB No.699790 dt.23.7.1986. PWB was `self. The appellant had sent the PWB to State Bank of India, Hindaun City with the instruction that the bilty be handed over to M/s. Gupta Cloth Store, Hindaun City on payment of Rs.23,958.27. M/s. Gupta Cloth Store did not retire the PWB from the Bank and so it was sent back to the appellant on 21/29.8.1986 which was received by the appellant on 1.9.1986. The appellant went to Hindaun City Railway Station on 13.9.1986 and asked the Station Master for delivery of 5 bales on cloth booked by it on 23.7.1986. The Station Master of Railways, Hindaun City informed the appellant that the consignment had been re-booked to Idgah Railway Station vide PWB No.567377 on execution of indemnity bond, whereas appellant had never given instructions to the Railway Administration for rebooking the aforesaid consignment and, therefore, the appellant claimed cost of goods, interest at the rate of 18% over the actual cost from the date it was booked with Railways on 23.7.1986 and the cost of notice issued to the Railways.

(3). A reply to the application was filed by the respondents through Railway Administration. It was pleaded by the Railway that the consignment in question reached at the destination i.e. Railway Station, Hindaun City on 26.7.1986 and on 29.7.1986, the representative of the appellant firm approached the Railway official, Hindaun City and informed that PWB has been lost by the appellant and instructed the Railway Administration to give delivery on furnishing indemnity bond on 1.8.1986. The representative of the appellant firm produced indemnity bond and requested the Railway Administration for re-booking of consignment to Idgah Railway Station and accordingly, the Railway Station, Hindaun City re-booked the said consignment to Idgah Railway Station vide PWB No.567377 and accordingly, the consignment was sent to Idgah Railway Station. The respondent pleaded that the Railway Station. The respondent pleaded that the Railway Administration is not responsible to pay the compensation for non-delivery of the said consignment.

(4). On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed following issues:-

``Issue No.1 - Whether the applicant firm is entitled to sue?

Issue No.2 - Whether bale of cotton cloth booked in the suit consignment was rebooked Ex. Hindauncity to Agra Idgah on 1.8.86 on the instructions and directions of the applicant firm (burden respondent)?

Issue No.3 - Whether the suit consignment has not been delivered at all to the applicant?

Issue No.4 - Whether the applicant suffered a loss of Rs.23, 803.27 on account of above said non-delivery and the applicant is entitled to get it?

Issue No.5 - Whether the applicant is entitled to get interest at the rate of 18% per annum and Rs.500/- as cost of notice?

Issue No.6 - Whether the respondent is not liable to pay for the compensation?

Issue No.7 - Relief?

(5). Issue No.1 was decided in favour of the appellant. While deciding issue No.2, the Tribunal held that some other person who impersonated himself as Jasraj Chopra had signed the indemnity bond. Thus, from the finding on issue No.2, it is very clear that neither Jasraj Chopra, the partner of the appellant firm had furnished indemnity bond nor requested the Railway Adminis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document