Delhi High Court
Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 10 May, 2006
Author: B Chaturvedi
Bench: B Chaturvedi
JUDGMENT
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.
Page 1779
1. Present appeal arises out of a judgment dated 6th November, 2003 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Principal Bench), Delhi dismissing the claim application of the appellant.
2. The facts in brief are that the appellant booked a wagon No. SR 35545 containing furnace oil with the railways against Railway Receipt No. 846183 dated 28th September, 1989 from Bajwa for transportation to Shakurbasti (SSB). The wagon contained 22,040 litres of Furnace Oil. At destination station, it was, however, discovered that the said wagon was totally empty. On a joint verification carried out by the concerned railway staff and the officials of appellant, it was noticed that the top and bottom seals of the wagon were missing. The wagon was also found even without internal valve rod. The appellant served a claim notice on the railways for an amount of Rs. 67,365/- being value of the contents of wagon. However, the respondent rejected its claim necessitating filing of a claim application by the appellant before the Railway Claims Tribunal.
3. No written statement to the claim application was filed on behalf of the respondent. Also no evidence in rebuttal of appellant's evidence was produced Page 1780 by it. The appellant apart from placing on record Stock Transfer Challan, Railway Receipt and joint verification report, adduced evidence by way of affidavit of one of its officers namely Sh. B.R. Kubba in support of its claim.
4. Heard the arguments on either side.
5. On perusal of the impugned order, it is noticed that the claim application was dismissed, firstly, as the appellant, according to the Tribunal, failed to prove that 22040 litres of furnace oil had actually been loaded in the wagon and, secondly, that the appellant could not substantiate its averment in the claim petition that loss of contents was occasioned due to leakage.
6. To prove that the wagon in question had actually been loaded and contained the quantity of Furnace Oil as indicated in the RR (Exhibit AW 1/2), the appellant apart from examining one of its officers Sh. B.R. Kubba on affidavit relies upon Stock Transfer Challan (Ex. AW 1/3), and Railway Receipt (Ex.AW-1/2).
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that Stock Transfer Challan is prepared only after loading of the wagon and later it is on the basis of Stock Transfer Challan that a railway receipt is issued. He argues that the preparation of the Stock Transfer Challan being earlier in point of time, issue of the Railway Receipt on the basis thereof has obviously to be subsequent thereto. There appears considerable force in the argument to outweigh the finding of the Tribunal on the first count. Since the respondent failed to file its written statement and also as no evidence was produced on its behalf in rebuttal, there was no reason to overlook the unrebutted evidence of the appellant in regard to the fact that the wagon in question had actually been loaded simply on the ground that the Stock Transfer Challan was prepared a day earlier to the issue of Railway Receipt.
8. The railway receipt (Exhibit AW 1/2) carries a stamped endorsement that the loading of the wagon was not supervised by the railway staff. Even if that be the case once the appellant proves that loading of wagon in question had actually taken place. after the same had been handed over to the respondent railway administration for transportation to the destination station, in terms of Section 93 of the Railways Act, 1989, it is the railway administration which would be responsible for the loss of the consignment.
9. The Tribunal had noted that in its claim application the appellant had mentioned that 'the product was in wagon No. SR 35545 but was delivered to the appellant in a leaky condition as quite empty'. Taking note of joint verification certificate the Tribunal concluded that the certificate did not indicate that there was any leakage as alleged by the applicant. As a matter of course, it is not for the consignor or consignee to prove as to how and in what manner any loss to the consignment occurred in transit once the same is proved to have been duly booked with the railways. It is rather for the railway administration to account for the loss, if any, in the course of transit. Whether the loss of contents of wagon in question was attributable to leakage or pilferage is not in the circumstances material and the railway administration cannot escape its liability simply because of the appellant's failure to show that there was actually any leakage in the wagon. This is an Page 1781 admitted position that the top and bottom seals of the wagon were missing and the wagon was also found without internal valve rod which are indicative of the fact that there had been tampering with the wagon and contents thereof. Since the railway administration has failed to account for the loss of the contents of the wagon in question it is liable to make good the loss suffered by the appellant. The Tribunal was, thus, not justified in declining claim application filed by the appellant. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal is, in the circumstances, liable to be set aside.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. The claim application for Rs. 67,365/- stands allowed with interest @15% p.a. up to the date of filing of the claim application and @ 9% p.a. on the principal sum during the pendency of the claim application till realisation.
11. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
