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.

1. Invoking power under S.23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Union of India represented by the General Manager, N. F. Railway, Maligaon has preferred the instant appeal questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 6-3-2007 passed in Review Application No. 1 of 2007 whereby the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) dismissed the review application holding that the Railway had failed to make out a case for review as provided under R.32 of Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Procedure Rules ) thereby affirmed the judgment and order dated 4-12-2006 arising out of OA No. 468 / 2004 directing the N. F. Railway to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,86,20,510/- (Rupees one crore eighty six lakhs twenty thousand five hundred and ten) only (hereinafter referred to as the compensation amount ) with interest @ 7% from the date of filing of OA i.e. 6-12-2004 within 60 (sixty) days failing which the respondent Railways shall be required to pay interest @ 9% from 6-12-2004 along with the cost of Rs. 1,50,000/- inclusive of application fee of Rs. 95,569/-.

2. The pleaded facts of the case is narrated hereunder in seriatim as follows:
The appellant herein was arrayed as party respondent No. 1 before the learned Tribunal titled as OA No. 467/2004 and OA No. 468/2004 whereas M/s. Gopal Enterprise was arrayed as pro forma respondent No. 2 in OA No. 467/2004 and Assam State Cooperative Marketing and Consumers Federation ( STATFED for short) was arrayed as pro forma respondent No. 2 on OA No. 468/2004. The aforesaid two OAs have been filed seeking compensation against the respondent No. 1 Railway on the ground of non - delivery of goods to the titleholder.

3. The record would reveal that one Shri S. R. Bhalotia of Kolkata made an offer to the respondent No. 1 for purchase of S.30 quality of sugar for the year 2002-2003 at Rs. 1034/- per quintal which was accepted by the respondent No. 1 and accordingly 23,200 quintals of sugar was agreed to be purchased as per letter of acceptance dated 25-2-2003. In the aforesaid letter of acceptance certain conditions were incorporated. One of the condition relates to quality of sugar as enumerated as condition No. 9. According to the said condition quality of sugar was required to be checked by the buyers before loading making it clear that thereafter no complaint would be entertained.

4. Thereafter the aforesaid S. R. Bhalotia transferred the agreement for purchase of sugar equally between pro forma respondent No. 2 i.e. STATFED both in OA No. 467 / 2004 and OA No. 468/2004 which was accepted by respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 26-2-2003. Accordingly the respondent No. 1 transferred the order in favour of the pro forma respondents who in turn accepted the offer, meaning thereby that the pro forma respondents are bound by the terms of acceptance incorporated in the letter of acceptance dated 25-2-2003. The condition specified in the letter of acceptance was that the buyer was required to pay 100% of the price of sugar through bank and the said S. R. Bhalotia in his letter of offer dated 21-2-2003 had agreed to release the railway receipts from the bank after making payment which would disclose that there were two distinct contract for supply of purchase of sugar by the applicants and M/s. Gopal Enterprises and the STATFED.

5. As agreed to by the pro forma respondents, the applicants dispatched 11,580 quintals of sugar in favour of the pro forma respondent No. 2 in OA No. 467/2004 under Railway R