Coram: Leena Sarma, Member (Technical)

Mahtab Ahmad, Member (Judicial)

OAI-56/2019 (Old)

OA(I)/GHY/32/2019 (New)

Date of filing original application: 23.07.2019 Date of Judgement: 26.02.2024 M/s. Laxminarayan Ajitkumar Jain, 7-H. M. Market, 1^st Floor, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati-781001, Assam .... Applicant -Versus-

The Union of India represented by The General Manager, N. F. Railway, Guwahati-781011, Assam .... Respondent Present: Shri K. P. Maheshwari, Learned counsel for the applicant Shri A. K. Sarma, Learned counsel for the respondent By Mahtab Ahmad, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

The applicant has filed the present claim application for compensation of Rs.57,440/- for short delivery of goods along with interest and cost.

2. The applicant’s case is that a consignment of 1276 packets of sugar containing 50 kg per packet was booked under Invoice no.32/Railway Receipt no.212000616 dated 16.02.2018 ex. PVR to AZA. The applicant claims that it is an endorsed consignee of the consignment and delivery was taken by it on submission of original railway receipt. Therefore, applicant has legal title to file this claim for loss/damage of goods under Section 74 of the Railways Act, 1989. The above consignment, which was purchased as per Sale Invoice dated 28.02.2018, was booked and loaded at Railway Risk Rate in safe, sound and secured condition after meeting all legal and statutory inspection at the regular booking station PVR (Goods). The loading was also supervised by the railway staff and properly recorded in Loading Tally Book. At destination AZA (Goods), at the time of taking delivery in the presence of railway officials and RPF staff, the stack inside the wagon was found in disturbed condition and also the wagon was found without seal and door in open condition. It shows the negligence, mis-handling and misconduct of the railway administration and its servants in tackling the consignment during carriage. At the destination station, the railway granted open and assessment delivery and 32 packets of sugar, packing 50 kg each, were found short there. Accordingly necessary DDM/certificate dated 09.03.2018 was issued, but the railway authority refused to issue short certificate stating that the consignment was booked under ‘Said to Contain, loading not supervised by railway staff’. The applicant has put his claim for compensation of Rs.57,440/- with bijak and DDM, but the railway did not admit and dispose of the above claim. Notice dated 11.06.2018 is sent to the railway administration, but no action was taken on the part of the respondent railway; therefore this claim application has been filed.

3. The respondent has contested the claim application by filing written statement dated 29.07.2021, in which, the title of the applicant to file the present claim application and service and validity of notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 is denied. On fact, the only contention of the respondent is that the consignment was booked at the forwarding station with railway receipt having remarks as “Loaded direct from truck/cart to wagon, loading not supervised by railway staff,.... wagon closed, rivetted and sealed in presence of sender, Sender’s weight accept,.... Said to Contain’. On the above, referring Section 65(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, the respondent contended that the applicant has to prove the actual entrustment of the goods and the monetary loss and only then, it will be entitled to get the alleged claim. The applicant has not filed any such supporting document, therefore in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in MFA no.272/2010 decided on 21.03.2018 and MFA no.92/2016 decided on 21.05.2020, the applicant is not entitled to get any compensation and the claim application is liable to be rejected.

4. On the above pleadings of the parties, following issues have been framed: 1. Whether statutory legal notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 has been duly served?

2. Whether the applicant holds legal title?

3.