Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 1839
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ravi Ranjan, J.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Through The General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. - Respondent
FAO No. 4127 of 2014
Decided On : 24-01-2019
Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr.Sanyam Malhotra, Advocate, for the Respondent-Railways
The Railways Act imposes liability on the Railway Authorities for the loss, destruction, damage, or non-delivery of goods carried by the Railways, and the Railway Receipt serves as prima facie evidence of the weight and number of packages stated therein.
Headnote:
Railways Act - Compensation Claim - Section 106, 65, 97 - The judgment discusses the service of notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, the liability of Railways for loss, and the responsibility for the consignment. The court held that the Railways were liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the appellant-IOCL and awarded compensation and interest.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-Indian Oil Corporation Limited claimed compensation for the loss of 4160 litres of SKO due to non-delivery and leakage of a wagon. The Railway Authorities denied the claim, citing technical issues and negligence on the part of the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act was effectively served on the Railways, the Railway Authorities were responsible for the loss, and the appellant was entitled to compensation and interest.
Issues: The issues included the service of notice, the existence of loss, and the amount of compensation claimant is entitled to.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Railways were liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the appellant-IOCL and awarded compensation and interest based on the joint dip certificate accepting the loss caused by the Railways.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant-IOCL was awarded compensation for the loss and interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
JUDGMENT
Dr.Ravi Ranjan, J. (Oral) - The appellant-Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter to be referred as 'IOCL' or 'Corporation') has assailed the judgment dated 27.11.2013 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, in case no.OA-I/01/2009 by which the claim case for compensation filed by the appellant-IOCL has been dismissed.
The appellant-Corporation claimed that the company despatched about 46 numbers of wagon containing Superior Kerosine Oil ((hereafter to be referred to as 'SKO') from IOC KRIR to its depot at IOC SCPD, Jalandhar. 46 Wagons were received but one of the wagons being Wagon No.WR-966867 was not received which would be apparent from the non-delivery certificate granted by the Nothern Railway, Suchipind dated 07.09.2006. It is stated in the claimapplication that a claim notice in this regard dated 26.10.2006 was given to the respondent which was duly received, thereafter, the said wagon was placed on applicant's siding at Suchipind, Jalandhar on 26.10.2006 in leaking condition due to which the appellant-Corporation suffered a loss of 4160 litres of SKO. The seals put up over the tank wagon by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited(IOCL) were found missing at the distination station as per the joint dip certificate dated 26.10.2006.
Again a notice dated 08.11.2006 was issued by the applicant-Corporation to the Railway Authorities, which the Corporation claimed to have duly been received by the respondent-Railways. It is further claimed that due to the aforesaid shortage which stands reflected in the joint dip certificate also, the applicant-Corporation suffered a loss of 4160 litres of SKO at the rate of Rs. 35,412.30 per Kilo Litre and in this background of the matter the claim for making good a loss of about Rs.1,47,315.17 alongwith 18% per annum interest was claimed.
2. The respondent-Railways Authority appeared and filed a written statement taking diverse objections including one regarding maintainaiblity of the case and other technical issues. On merit, the claim was denied, valuatioin of consignment was also denied. In paragraph no.7(i) of the written statement it has been stated that contents of the claim application are wrong and false, hence, denied and the applicant should be put to strict proof of the same. It is further stated that there is no question of negligence on the part of the respondent-Railways as the loss, if any, suffered by the applicant-Corporation is not because of Railways but due to the negligent act of applicant itself.However, very importantly, it is stated that, since the matter was still under investigation, the respondent-Railways reserves its right to amend the written statement in future. The written statement does not talk about any joint dip certificate issued by the IOCL and the Railways. It further discloses that everything, which was being stated in the written statement, was without any proper investigation as the respondent-Railways has categorically stated that the matter was still under investigation and had reserved the right to amend the written statement, after completion of enquiry/investigation. This fact has to be noted for the reason that later on many things have been stated by the witnesses who have been examined by the respondent-Railways, on the basis of certain inquiry done by the Railways during the pendency of the claim application. However, surprisingly, though such stand has been taken by the witnesses, no effort to get the written statement amended was made by the respondent.
3. Upon consideration of rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed following issues:
1. Whether the notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act has been issued by the claimant?
2. Whether claimant has suffered any loss?
3. To what amount of compensation claimant is entitled to?
4. Relief
4. In order to prove its case, the applicant/appellant-Corporation tendered affidavit of Sh.S.Qamar Ahmed, Assistant Manager (Law) as AW1 and tendered in evidence various
