Delhi High Court
Harcharan Singh Talwar And Co. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 9 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: I (2004) ACC 134, I (2004) ACC 485
Author: S Mahajan
Bench: S Mahajan
JUDGMENT
S.K. Mahajan, J.
1. ADMIT.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.
3. This order will dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant to challenge the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal. A few facts relevant for deciding the appeal are :-
A consignment containing 30 cardboard boxes of fowl eggs were dispatched from Kayankulam (Kerala) to New Delhi under Parcel Way Bill (PWB) Nos. 697505 dated 16.11.1996. The consignment was not delivered in Delhi and the appellant, therefore, filed an application under Section 16 of the Railways Act after giving notice under the relevant provisions of the Railways Act and under the Code of Civil Procedure, before the Railway Claims Tribunal claiming damages for non-delivery of the consignment. It was claimed in the application before the Tribunal that the non-delivery of the consignment was entirely due to acts of misconduct on the part of the respondents and the applicant was, therefore, entitled to damages. The appellant claimed that at the relevant time the rate of 100 `desi eggs' was Rs. 243/- and he was entitled to damages at the said rates. After recording evidence of the parties, the Tribunal came to a finding that the appellant was not able to prove that the consignment comprised of "desi eggs" or that the price of 100 "desi eggs" was Rs. 243/- and taking the price @ 90paise per egg as mentioned in the Economic Times of the relevant date, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 8,429/- in favor of the appellant along with proportionate cost and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of the application till realisation. This order has now been challenged by the appellant by filing this appeal.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that as the eggs consigned with the railways were "desi eggs" rate of which was Rs. 243/- per 100 eggs, the Tribunal ought to have awarded damages at this rate. By the impugned order the Tribunal has held that the appellant has not been able to prove that the eggs which were to be delivered to the consignee were "desi eggs" as nowhere including the PWB and notices sent by the appellant it was mentioned that the eggs consigned from Kerala to New Delhi were "desi eggs". Only description of goods given in the PWB and notices was that "fowl eggs" had been sent vide the aforesaid PWBs and tribunal taking the rate of each egg as 90 paise in accordance with the rates published in the Economic Times, assessed the damages payable to the appellant for non-delivery of the consignment.
5. A perusal of the Trial Court file as well as the evidence recorded by the Tribunal shows that except in the bills which were alleged to have been sent by the cosigner to the consignee nowhere it is mentioned that the eggs consigned by the cosignor were "desi eggs". Even in the notice issued by the appellant, it was not mentioned that the consignment contained "desi eggs". Neither the Consignor nor the person who might have loaded and packed the eggs has appeared before the tribunal to depose that consignment was comprised of "desi eggs". In view of the evidence before the Tribunal, in my opinion, it was fully justified to hold that the appellant had failed to prove the eggs consigned vide the aforesaid PWB were"desi eggs" and it was, therefore, justified in assessing the rates prevalent for eggs as had been mentioned in the Economic Times. I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. There are no merits in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
