Allahabad High Court
M/S Krishak Bharati Co-Operative ... vs Union Of India Through General ... on 20 September, 2023
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:60610
Court No. - 19
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 473 of 2000
Appellant :- M/S Krishak Bharati Co-Operative Ltd.
Respondent :- Union Of India Through General Manager N.E.R. Gorakhpur
Counsel for Appellant :- A.K.Bhatnagar
Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Srivastava,A.S.G.I.,Pratul Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
None appears for the Railway/Union of India.
The instant appeal has been preferred U/s 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act assailing the award dated 9.3.1999 whereby the claim of the appellant was dismissed on the ground that as to whether the appellant, who was the claimant before the Tribunal, was entitled to receive the compensation.
It is urged that the Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that the railway receipt could not have been endorsed.
It is further submitted that this issue has already been considered by this Court in FAFO No. 474 of 2000 'M/S Krishak Bharati Co-Operative Ltd. vs. Union of India' wherein this Court noticing the provisions of Section 74 of the Railways Act including the decision of the Apex Court in Raymond Cement Works vs. Union of India where the proposition was considered and noticed. Thereafter, the appeal has been allowed.
It is further submitted that the proposition was followed by this Court in another FAFO No. 246 of 1999 'Union of India vs.M/S Krishak Bharati Co-Operative Ltd.' wherein similar issue was involved. The instant case also relates to the rejection of the claim on the basis of Section 74 of the Railways Act, 1989.
The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions as well as the decision rendered by this Court in M/S Krishak Bharati Co-Operative Ltd. vs. Union of India in FAFO No. 474 of 2000 wherein the identical issue was decided by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Raymond Cement Works vs. Union of India. The relevant portion thereof is being reproduced herein after for ready reference:
"This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court dated 31.07.2017. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raymond Cement Works vs. Union of India considering the issue whether and under what circumstance the property passes which is covered by the Railway receipt in terms of Section 74 of the Railways Act, 1989 has held as under:
"We say so on the strength of the interpretation of Section 74 of the Railways Act, 1989. Section 74 of the Act is extracted hereunder:
"74. Passing of property in the goods covered by railway receipt. The property in the consignment covered by a railway receipt shall pass to the consignee or the endorsee, as the case may be, on the delivery of such railway receipt to him and he shall have all the rights and liabilities of the consignor."
A perusal of Section 74 of the Act reveals, that for passing of property in the goods, covered by a railway receipt, by way of endorsement, it is essential, that the endorsement should satisfy the ingredients thereof, as defined in Section 2(13) of the Act. Section 2(13) is reproduced hereunder:
"2 (13) "endorsement" means the signing by the consignee or the endorsee after adding a direction on a railway receipt to pass the property in the goods mentioned in such receipt to a specified person."
A perusal of the definition of the term ''endorsement', leaves no room for doubt, that an ''endorsement', within the meaning of Section 74, means only such endorsement wherein and whereby a direction is recorded that the property in the goods mentioned in the receipt, would pass to the endorsee. Insofar as the ''endorsement' made by the appellant in the present case is concerned, no such direction was contained in the endorsement". It is therefore apparent, that the endorsement recorded in the present case (on the railway receipt) would be inconsequential, as far as, Section 74 of the Railways Act, 1989 is concerned. In view of the above, we are satisfied, that the claim raised by the appellant before the Railway Claims Tribunal could not be declined, on the strength of Section 74 of the Railways Act, 1989."
In the light of decision mentioned above and, as, held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that mere fact that the consignee is different from the consignor, does not mean that the title of the goods pass from the consignor to the consignee. The question as to whether, the title to the goods passes to the consignee has to be decided on the basis of evidence and it is quite possible for the consignor to retain the title in the goods itself, while, the consignment is booked in the name of another person. This aspect of the matter has been lost sight by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 09.03.1999. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment dated 09.03.1999 deserves to the set-aside and since the findings of issues No. 1, 3 and 4 have not been given, therefore, under the aforesaid circumstances, the matter is remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal with the direction that since the matter is old, it shall decide OC-9700394 afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditious."
Since the instant matter is also covered by the aforesaid decision, accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award dated 9.3.1999 is set aside and the claim case No. OC 9700310 stands restored on the board of Railway Claims Tribunal.
The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 09.10.2023 who shall after considering the aforesaid matter pass fresh orders in the light of the decision of this Court which has been passed on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in Raymond Cement Works (supra).
The Railway Claims Tribunal shall make every endeavour to decide the same within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed and the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 09.10.2023.
With the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed.
Let the lower court record be returned.
Order Date :- 20.9.2023
Shravan
