The claim for compensation for non-delivery of goods by the Railway is a debt within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951, and the legal representatives of a displaced person are entitled to make an application under Section 13 of the Act.

D.K.Mahajan, J.

1. This is a first appeal arising out of an order passed by Shri Chetan Dass Jain, Senior Sub-Judge, acting as a Tribunal under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act (Act No. 70 of 1951)--hereinafter referred to as the Act, in an application under S. 13 of the Act against the Union of India. This appeal came up for hearing before Bishan Narain J. on 18-9-1956, and in view of the importance of the questions involved, it was referred to a Division Bench for decision.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are short and simple. Amolak Ram Sethi was carrying on business of a fruit merchant as sole proprietor under the name and style of Laxmi Fruit Agency at Jammu Tawi (Kashmir) and Rawalpindi (now Pakistan). He booked three consignments of fruits and vegetables from Jammu Tawi to Delhi. One of these consignments the consignment in dispute in this appeal was booked on 12-8-1947, and the remaining two, not in dispute in this appeal, were booked on 27-8-1947. The goods never reached the destination and were neither delivered to the consignee nor to the consignor. Amolak Ram died in communal riots in Rawalpindi in September, 1947. His widow Smt. Tara Rani and his sons filed the application, which has given rise to this appeal under S. 13 of the Act.

The claim made in this application related to the three consignments and was made against the Union of India for a sum of Rs. 24,206-3-0. A number of preliminary objections were raised to this petition, and in this appeal only those out of them have been dealt with which were pressed by the learned counsel for the Union of India. On the merits, the principal contentions raised related to the liability of the Union of India and the quantum of that liability. All the preliminary objections were rejected by the Tribunal on 2-5-1953. On merits, the decision was given on 7-12-1953. The claim of the petitioners with regard to the two consignments of 27-8-1947 was rejected, but a decree was passed for the claim relating to the consignment dated 12-8-1947. Against this decision, the present appeal was filed by the Union of India and on a reference by Bishan Narain J. it has come up for hearing before us.

3. At this stage, it will be proper to set out the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Union:

1. That the claim in question is not a debt as defined in S. 2 (6) of the Act and consequently the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine the present controversy.

2. That the application under S. 13 of the Act was barred by time.

3. That the Act only confers benefit on the person, who actually was displaced from Pakistan and not on his legal representatives.

4. That the loss of goods was not due to any fault of the Railway and thus the Union of India is not liable for the price of the goods.

5. That there is no proof on the record to prove the price of the goods and thus no decree for Rs. 5,151-10-6 could be passed."

4. I propose to take up each of the contentions of the learned counsel for the Union in the order in which they have been set out above.

5. The first question that arises for determination is whether the claim in question is a debt or not as defined in S. 2 (6) of the Act. Section 2 (6) of the Act is in these terms:

"2 (6): debt means any pecuniary liability, whether payable presently or in future, or under a decree or order of a civil or revenue Court or otherwise, or whether ascertained or to be ascertained, which- (a) * * * * *

(b) * * * * *

(c) * * * * *"

The contention of the learned counsel is that this is merely a claim for damages and as such is not a debt. For this proposition, he relies on the following decisions, reported as: Iron and Hardware (India) Co. V/s. Firm Shamlal and Bros, AIR 1954 Bom 423, Karamchand Pessumal V/s. Madhavdas Savaldas, AIR 1956 Bom 669, Jogindra Singh V/s. Sardarni Chattar Kaur, 57 Pun LR 226, Milkha Singh V/s. Messrs. N. K. Gopala Krishna Mudaliar, AIR 1956 Punj 174, Gopi Chand Singh V/s. Union of India, F.