Gauhati High Court
Union Of India vs M/S P.P. Enterprises on 1 October, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010006142011
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MFA/79/2011
UNION OF INDIA,
REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON,
GUWAHATI-11
VERSUS
M/S P.P. ENTERPRISES,
JAIL ROAD, FANCY BAZAR, GUWHATI-1, ASSAM,
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.N K DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.K P MAHESWARI
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
01.10.2021
Heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the NF Railways. Also heard Mr. M.
Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondents.
This is an appeal under Section 23 of The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 whereby the
judgment and award dated 10.12.2010 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in
Original Application No. 531/2006 is put to challenge. A consignment of 11094 packets of sugar, each
containing 50 kg was booked on 16.05.2006 from NGC to SCL under RR No. 538692, but after
Page No.# 2/4
reaching the destination the appellant delivered 6996 kg short and 857 packets were wet damaged
condition. Therefore, the Notice under Section 106 was served by the appellant. Thereafter, the present
respondent filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench stating therein
that the present appellant is fully responsible for the short delivery and for damage of consignment. The
respondent therefore demanded that the appellant is liable to pay damages. The appellant also contested
the claim case by filing a written statement. In the aforesaid written statement, the present appellant
admitted that they had received the Notice under Section 106 of The Railways Act, but they challenged
the validity and sufficiency of the Notice. The present appellants admitted the booking of the said
consignment but denied the value of the consignment. The present appellant had pleaded that the
consignment was booked under the remark in the railways receipt 'said to contain 11094 k/s sugar'.
The appellant further disclosed that originally the consignment was booked from SUR to NGC.
Subsequently, R/B to SCL, with original lead seal and CL, not supervised by railway staff. For this
reason, the present appellants denied their responsibility. The appellant has stated that at the time of re-
booking/ diversion from NGC to SCL, it had issued a letter to the present respondent on 29.05.2006
wherein it was clearly intimated that the Deliver Certificate is issued for the accounting purpose only
and no claim would be entertained on the strength of the said Delivery Certificate. The appellant has
claimed that the damage of goods was caused by rain water as because the goods were unloaded while
it was raining. According to the appellant, the respondent did not demand for open delivery at the
destination station rather the respondent demanded compensation for issuing the said Delivery
Certificate. It has been pleaded that by its conduct the respondent had waived their right to pay
compensation on account of alleged damage. The appellant further pleaded that though consignment
was book on 16.05.2006, the sale purchase records show that the date of booking was 23.05.2006. In
fact, the appellant claimed, that two transactions were clubbed together.
On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:
1. Whether proper notice was served to the respondent under Section 106 of The Railways Act, 1989
by the applicant and in time?
2. Whether the consignment was rebooked under the conditions that no claim will be entertained?
3. Whether the respondent had delivered the entire consignment intact at the destination?
4. Whether the applicant is entitled for the compensation, as prayed for?
5. Relief and order?
Finally, after hearing both sides, the Tribunal passed an order on 10.12.2010 directing the
appellant/ railways to pay an amount of Rs.6,50,239/- along with interest @6% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim petition. The appellant was directed to pay the compensation within 90
(ninety) days from the date of filing of the claim application, failing which the compensation amount
would carry an interest @7% per annum till realization.
Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the actual claim of the
respondent is based on two facts, namely, short delivery and damage to a part of the consignment. Mr.
Sharma further submits that for the aforesaid reasons, there should have been an Issue but the learned
Tribunal did not frame any such issue.
Per contra, Ms. M. Sharma supported the impugned judgment.
I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel.
So far as carrying goods by railways is concerned, it has a statutory responsibility by virtue of
Section 93 of the Railways Act, 1989. Section 93 reads as under:
Page No.# 3/4
"93. General responsibility of a railway administration as carrier of goods.--Save
as otherwise provided in this Act, a railway administration shall be responsible for the
loss, destruction, damage or deterioration in transit, or non-delivery of any consignment,
arising from any cause except the following, namely:--
(a) act of God;
(b) act of war;
(c) act of public enemies;
(d) arrest, restraint or seizure under legal process;
(e) orders or restrictions imposed by the Central Government or a State
Government or by an officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government or a
State Government authorised by it in this behalf;
(f) 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;
(g) natural deterioration or wastage in bulk or weight due to inherent defect,
quality or vice of the goods;
(h) latent defects;
(i) fire, explosion or any unforeseen risk:
Provided that even where such loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-
delivery is proved to have arisen from any one or more of the aforesaid causes, the
railway administration shall not be relieved of its responsibility for the loss, destruction,
damage, deterioration or non-delivery unless the railway administration further proves
that it has used reasonable foresight and care in the carriage of the goods."
The Railway Claims Tribunal adjudicates disputes within a legal framework. Framing of issues
in litigation is an important exercise of judicial authorities. By framing issues the authorities which
exercise judicial power separates the points to be decided and decide them individually. In the case in
hand, no issues pertaining to the actual claim of the respondent are framed. The respondent claimed
that there was a short delivery. Respondent further claimed that a part of the consignment was
damaged. These two facts must be adjudicated first and then only the question of payment of
compensation would arise.
The Issue No. 3 reads as "Whether the respondent had delivered the entire consignment intact at
the destination". In my consideration, this issue does not cover the aforesaid two facts.
For the aforesaid premised reasons, the impugned judgment dated 10.12.2010 is not sustainable
in law. The Tribunal failed to decide as to whether there was short delivery and as to whether a part of
the consignment was damaged. Therefore, the impugned judgment dated 10.12.2010 passed in Original
Application No. 531/2006 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench is set aside.
The case is remanded to the Tribunal for framing appropriate issues and, thereafter, dispose of
the matter after giving opportunity of being heard to both sides. The appeal stands disposed of.
LCR shall be returned.
JUDGE
Page No.# 4/4
Comparing Assistant
