Coram: Leena Sarma, Member (Technical)-II Mahtab Ahmad, Member (Judicial)-II OAI-07/2012 (Old)

OA(I)/GHY/2012/0015 Date of filing original application: 30.04.2012 Date of Judgement: 13.07.2023 M/s. Choradia & Sons, H. M. Market, T. R. P. Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati-12, Assam .... Applicant -Versus-

The Union of India represented by The General Manager, N. F. Railway, Maligaon, Assam .... Respondent Present: Shri K. P. Maheshwari, Learned counsel for the applicant Shri A. K. Sarma, Learned counsel for the respondent Mahtab Ahmad, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

1. The present claim application is filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 by the applicant for an award of Rs.12,703/- along with interest and costs of litigation towards the value of 09 bags of sugar, which is alleged to have been delivered short by the respondent railway.

2. Brief history of the case of the applicant is that 1235 bags (per bag of 50 kg) of sugar were booked under Invoice no.28/Railway Receipt no.212008166 dated 18.10.2011 ex. GRMT to NGC after complying the packing condition as prescribed under the railway rules. The remarks recorded in the railway receipt were contradictory to the remarks recorded at the forwarding station for booking as the consignment was in sound, strong and good condition. The consignment arrived at destination in a seal defective condition and on unloading, 09 bags of sugar were delivered short. The shortage occurred due to delay in transit, negligence and misconduct on the part of the carrier Railway and criminal interference of the wagon holding the consignment enroute; and that the Railway Administration cannot absolve their liability unless it is disclosed by producing the records as to how the consignment was dealt with in transit, which are in exclusive knowledge of the respondent railway. The respondent did not pay compensation for the shortage, despite serving notice. Thus, the applicant seeks compensation for short delivery of goods with interest @ 12% and cost.

3. The respondent has contested the claim application by filing written statement dated October, 2017, in which preliminary objection against maintainability of claim application has been raised; firstly, on account of legal status of the applicant firm and authority of Shri Kamal Kumar Jain to file the present claim application for and on behalf of the applicant firm and requiring proof of the same; and secondly, authority of the Manager to give notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 for and on behalf of applicant firm without supporting document. As regards shortage, the respondent averred that the consignment reached destination within reasonable time; that it is wrong to say that the consignment was booked in sound, strong and in good condition; that there was no criminal interference of the goods enroute and Railways took reasonable care for carrying the consignment from forwarding station to destination station; and that the applicant was not present when the consignment was booked by the consignor at the forwarding station. The delivery certificate was issued against ‘Said to Contain’ Railway Receipt, without any prejudice. The applicant failed to submit proper documents like lorry challan, beejuck, books of accounts, etc. to justify his claim. The respondent also averred that as per Section 110 of the Railways Act, 1989, the burden of proving the monetary loss for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any goods, lies on the person claiming compensation.

Accordingly, the claim application is prayed to be rejected.

4. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the claim application is properly verified, signed and filed?

2. Whether legal and valid notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 has been served?

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to amount claimed?

4. Relief and cost?

5. In this case neither party adduced oral evidence. In support of its claim, the ap