Delhi High Court
Steel Authority Of India Limited vs Union Of India on 24 August, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No.225/2013
% 24th August, 2017
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S. Srivastava, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. J.K. Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Railway
Claims Tribunal dated 12.11.2008 by which the Railway Claims
Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the
appellant/applicant for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,64,214/-, being the
loss caused on account of shortage in the delivery.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant loaded at its
private siding at the Bokaro Steel Plant eight consignments of C.R.
sheets of different description. The consignment was loaded in wagon
no. SC-64429 and the consignment was bound for the Sail Stock Yard
at Tuglakabad, New Delhi. The case of the appellant was that it
suspected shortage of the consignment enroute and therefore a request
was made for taking open delivery vide letters dated 25.6.1992 and
26.6.1992. When re-weighment was done of the consignment,
shortage to the extent of 18.410 MTs was found. The shortage was
found in the Railways Report and the Joint Survey Report of the
Railways dated 29.6.1992 and 23.7.1992 respectively. Appellant after
serving the statutory notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act,
1989 filed the subject claim petition.
3. The respondent pleaded that it is not liable because the
railway receipt in question was issued on the basis of „Senders Weight
Accepted‟ (SWA) i.e the railway receipt was not an unconditional
receipt but was only the conditional receipt that what is the weight of
the consignment has not been checked by the respondent/railways but
the weight as given by the consignor/appellant has been accepted.
Respondent relies upon Sections 65 and 94 of the Railways Act for
dismissing of the claim petition.
4. It is not disputed in the facts of the present case that
railway receipt shows that the same was as per SWA basis. Once the
railway receipt is as per SWA basis, then, the respondent is protected
by Section 94 of the Railways Act and which provides that there is no
liability of the respondent/railways unless at the point of interchange
to the railway wagon from the private siding a railway servant duly
authorized is present, i.e the railway servant is present at the time of
loading of the consignment, and therefore the railways is responsible
for the weight of the consignment. Once the railway receipt is on
SWA basis, then, there would be no liability in law of the respondent
in terms of Section 94 of the Railways Act. Even Section 65 of the
Railways Act only states that the railway receipt is only a prima facie
proof of its contents and which expression of prima facie so found
because of the procedure in the respondent/railways for taking SWA
consignments and which is done because railways does not have
provision for weighing of those consignments which are extremely
heavy/bulky or those consignments because of their nature or for some
other reason cannot weighed at the point of handing over of the
consignment by the consignor to the railways.
Sections 65 and 94 of the Railways Act are reproduced as under:-
"Section 65. Railway receipt.-(1) A railway administration shall,--
(a) in a case where the goods are to be loaded by a person entrusting such
goods, on the completion of such loading; or
(b) in any other case, on the acceptance of the goods by it, issue a railway
receipt in such form as may be specified by the Central Government.
(2) A railway receipt shall be prima facie evidence of the weight and the
number of packages stated therein:
Provided that in the case of a consignment in wagon-load or train-load and
the weight or the number of packages is not checked by a railway servant
authorised in this behalf, and a statement to that effect is recorded in such
railway receipt by him, the burden of proving the weight or, as the case may
be, the number of packages stated therein, shall lie on the consignor, the
consignee or the endorsee.
Section 94. Goods to be loaded or delivered at a siding not belonging to
a railway administration.-(1) Where goods are required to be loaded at a
siding not belonging to a railway administration for carriage by railway, the
railway administration shall not be responsible for any loss, destruction,
damage or deterioration of such goods from whatever cause arising, until the
wagon containing the goods has been placed at the specified point of
interchange of wagons between the siding and the railway administration
and a railway servant authorised in this behalf has been informed in writing
accordingly by the owner of the siding.
(2) Where any consignment is required to be delivered by a railway
administration at a siding not belonging to a railway administration, the
railway administration shall not be responsible for any loss, destruction,
damage or deterioration or non-delivery of such consignment from whatever
cause arising after the wagon containing the consignment has been placed at
the specified point of interchange of wagons between the railway and the
siding and the owner of the siding has been informed in writing accordingly
by a railway servant authorised in this behalf."
5. In view of the facts of the present case as stated above
and the law as applicable, it is held that the Railway Claims Tribunal
has committed no illegality in dismissing the claim petition because
the respondent/railways is protected by Sections 65 and 94 of the
Railways Act inasmuch as the railway receipt was a conditional
receipt of the consignment being accepted only on SWA basis.
6. There is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.
AUGUST 24, 2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne
