The consignor is liable to prove loss or damage to goods loaded at their siding without railway supervision under relevant statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

(Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. As the issue involved in all these appeal(s), broadly, is similar as such with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are being decided by this common order.

2. Heard Sri M.E. Khan alongwith Sri Shashank Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Verma as also Sri Mahendra Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent-Railway.

3. All the appeal(s), indicated above, were filed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short "BPCL"), under Section 23 of The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (in short "Act of 1987"), challenging the award(s) passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal (in short "Tribunal"), at Lucknow in the case(s) detailed here under:-

4. In all the case(s), indicated above, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition(s) preferred by BPCL.

5. It would be apt to refer that all the appeals were filed along with the application(s) for condonation of delay duly supported with an affidavit and after taking note of the facts and circumstances indicated therein, this Court condoned the delay and now all the appeals can be heard and decided on merits. The relevant record of the Tribunal pertaining to the case(s) indicated above is also available.

6. The relevant facts, in brief, related to all the appeals are to the effect that the BPCL loaded the consignment/petroleum product from its siding meaning thereby the petroleum product, which is subject matter of all the appeal(s), was not loaded at a siding belonging to Railway Administration and undisputedly at the time of loading of petroleum product in the wagon(s), no Goods Clerk or any other Staff of Railway Administration was present for tallying or supervising the petroleum product loaded in the wagon(s) and the petroleum product loaded by BPCL was unloaded at a siding of BPCL and just prior to unloading of the same, at the request of BPCL, the 'Joint Dip Certificate(s)' were prepared and as per these Certificate(s), the shortage was found in petroleum product loaded in the wagon(s) by BPCL at its siding.

7. In all the 'Joint Dip Certificate(s)', it has been indicated that "RA 1989, AR-94-(2), RLY not responsible for any shortage".

8. It would be apt to refer that the Railway receipt(s) related to claim(s), in issue, were issued to BPCL with remark(s) namely 'S/C' (said to contain), 'SWA' (senders' weight accepted) and 'loading not supervised by Railway Staff'.

9. It would also be apt to take note that the BPCL has not stated that the receipt(s) issued by Railway Administration to BPCL were not with remark(s) namely 'S/C' (said to contain) SWA (senders' weight accepted), 'loading not supervised by Railway staff' as also remark on 'Joint Dip Certificate(s)'