Gauhati High Court
Union Of India vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 4 February, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010223832016
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MFA/85/2016
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON,
GUWAHATI-11, ASSAM.
VERSUS
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD
ASSAM OIL DIVISION, DIGBOI-786171, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : SC, NF RLY
Advocate for the Respondent : MS.M SHARMA
Linked Case : MFA/83/2016
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI-11
ASSAM.
VERSUS
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD
Page No.# 2/5
ASSAM OIL DIVISION
DIGBOI 786171
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : SC
NF RLY
Advocate for : MS. M SHARMA appearing for M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION
LTD
Linked Case : MFA/94/2016
UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI -11
ASSAM.
VERSUS
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD
ASSAM OIL DIVISION DIGBOI- 786171
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : SC
RAILWAY
Advocate for : MR.K P MAHESWARI appearing for M/S INDIAN OIL
CORPORATION LTD
Linked Case : MFA/82/2016
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI-11
ASSAM.
Page No.# 3/5
VERSUS
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD
ASSAM OIL DIVISION
DIGBOI-786171
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MR.U K GOSWAMI
Advocate for : MS. M SHARMA appearing for M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION
LTD
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
JUDGMENT
Date : 04-02-2022
Heard Ms. U. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as
well as Ms. M. Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondents.
2. This batch of appeals under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987
are taken up together as because the question involved is the same.
3. By the impugned judgments dated 21.06.2016 in O.A.-I-46 of 2015, O.A.-I-47 of
2015, O.A.-I-48 of 2015 and O.A.-I-49 of 2015, the appellant Union of India was
directed to pay compensation to the respondent.
4. The respondent Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Assam Oil Division) at Digboi
filed claim applications before the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation on
account of short delivery of petroleum goods. The Tribunal agreed with the
respondent and directed the appellant Union of India to pay certain amount of
compensation to it.
5. Being aggrieved with the said decisions, the present batch of appeals have
been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon some earlier decisions of
Page No.# 4/5
this Court rendered in MFA 269/2010, MFA 76/2015 and MFA 92/2016. These judgments
were delivered in a similarly situated situations.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned
counsels for both the sides.
8. Indian Railways carry goods on commercial basis. Here, at this stage, Section
65 of the Indian Railways Act of 1989 is relevant. It reads as under:
"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."
9. In MFA 92 of 2016, this court has already held that a plain reading of the proviso
to Section 65(2) of the Railways Act, clearly shows that in case of wagon load or train
load consignments, if a specific statement by the Railway authorities is not found in
the Railway receipt that he had checked and verified the weight or volume of the
goods at the place of origin, the burden of proof to prove as to what was the
weight/volume, at the time of loading, would be on the consignor.
10. Paragaph -10 of the said judgment is quoted as under:
"10. The question as to what would be the weight/volume of the goods
at the place of origin is ordinarily covered by the railway receipt issued
by the railway authorities. But again in case of wagon load or train load
consignments, if the weight or the number of packages is not checked
by a railway servant authorized on his behalf, and a statement to that
effect is not recorded in such railway receipt, the burden of proving the
weight or, as the case may be, the number of packages stated therein,
which would be the volume of the goods transported in the instant case,
Page No.# 5/5
shall lie on the consignor, the consignee or the endorsee. A reading of
the proviso to Section 65(2) of the Act of 1989 clearly shows that in case
of wagon load or train load consignments if a specific statement by the
railway authorities is not found in the railway receipt that he had
checked and verified the weight or volume of the goods at the place of
origin, the burden of proof to prove as to what was the weight would be
on the consignor."
11. In the instant set of appeals, the view taken by this Court in MFA 92 of 2016 is
also applicable. Because, the railway receipts did not have any report pertaining to
the quantity or volume of goods loaded in the train. Therefore, it is the duty of the
respondent to prove the actual weight or volume of the goods it loaded in the train.
There is no evidence in these appeals as to the quantity or volume of goods actually
loaded by the respondent.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, this court hereby holds that the Tribunal erroneously
arrived at the finding. The impugned judgments are not sustainable in law. Therefore,
the appeals are allowed and disposed of accordingly.
13. Send back the LCR.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
