Delhi High Court
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Indian Oil Corporation on 29 October, 2004
Equivalent citations: I (2005) ACC 470, 116 (2005) DLT 439
Author: R Sodhi
Bench: R Sodhi
JUDGMENT
R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. CM 13486/2004 :
This is an application for early hearing. The same is allowed and disposed of. The matter is taken up for hearing today.
2. FAO 282/1999 :
This appeal is directed against the order dated 17th December, 1998 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (for short ''the Tribunal''), whereby the Tribunal has directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs. 16,154/- as compensation together with court fee of Rs. 872/- and Rs. 1,615/- as advocate's fee totaling Rs. 18,641/- within three months of the date of the order, failing which the same shall carry an interest @18% per annum.
3. The brief facts of this case, as has been noted by the Tribunal, are as under :
"Applicant's case is that from a consignment of petroleum products booked from Khari C.Road to Shakurbasti under RR No. 273237 dated 20.10.93, one drum was found leaking t the destination. This resulted in a loss for which he has claimed compensation of Rs. 17,968/-
There is no dispute about the title of the applicant, or that valid notice of claim was served on the Respondent Railway Administration in time and that the claim application was filed with this Tribunal in time.
Xerox copy of the R.R. Is filed. A certificate confirming the allegations that the drum was leaking was issued by the Chief Goods Supervisor, Northern Railway, Tughlakabad on 25.7.1993, a copy of which is filed.
Respondent Railway Administration has contested the case on the grounds that the applicant has no locus standi to sue, that the amount claimed is excessive and that Sec.93(f)(i) of the Railways Act, 1989 is applicable in this case and has also taken the shelter under Section 98 on the ground that the RR bears the remarks ''Said to contain, SWA, wagon loaded by the consignor, cushioning material not provided in between the barrels and wagon floor/panel nd P-3 not complied with''. Moreover the wagon reaced the destination in the original condition.
From the pleadings and verbal submissions, 4 issues are framed :
1. Whether the application is maintainable?
2. Whether the Respondent Railway administration can put up defense u/s. 93(f)(i) of the Railways Act?
3. Whether Sec.98 is applicable in this case and to what effect?
4. Whether the Respondent Railway admn. is liable to pay compensation in this case and if so, what would be the amount?"
4. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the Railways are protected under Section 93(f)(i) of the Railways Act (for short ''the Act'') as also under Section 94 thereof. The learned Tribunal has held that the Railway Administration had not discharged its responsibility in handling the goods in accordance with Section 93(i)(f) of the Act and therefore, could not take shelter under the same.
5.To appreciate the argument of learned counsel for the appellant, it would be necessary to peruse Section 93(f) of the Act. From a bare perusal of the same, it is clear that the Railway Administration are generally responsible as "carrier of goods". Clause (f) deals with act or omission or negligence of the consignor or the consignee or the endorsee or the agent or servant of the consignor or the consignee or the endorsee. In other words, it has to be shown by positive evidence that there was omissionr negligence of the nature as specified in clause (f) of Section 93 to enable the Railway Administration to claim protection there under. In the present case, there is no material on record to show that there had been any omission or negligence on the pat of the respondent. Merely contending that the goods were received from the respondent's siding and delivered at private siding is of no consequence.
6.The present case could only be determined with reference to evidence on record. The Tribunal has analysed the same and arrived at a conclusion that the Railways can seek no benefit under Section 93(f) of the Act. I have also had the occasion of going through the material on record and find that Railways could not claim benefit of Section 93 or for that matter under Section 94.
7. Before parting, I must put on record the displeasure of this court and bring to the notice of the parties that in matters where Government and Government bodies are involved, the same ought to be sorted out at their own level.
8. As discussed above, I find no merit in the appeal. FAO 282/1999 is accordingly dismissed.
