Gauhati High Court
Union Of India vs M/S G.P. Sales Corporation on 16 May, 2025
Page No.# 1/19
GAHC010003712012
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MFA/19/2012
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON,
GUWAHATI-11, ASSAM.
VERSUS
M/S G.P. SALES CORPORATION
MAIN ROAD, P.O.BANDERDEWA, ARUNACHAL PRADESH.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.N K DAS, MR.B SARMAH,MSB DEVI,MS.R R BORAH,MS.
K KALITA,MS. M CHATTERJEE,MRS. UMA CHAKRABORTY
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.B MAHESHWARI, MR.K P MAHESWARI,MR.A
GOYAL,MR.A CHOUDHURY
Linked Case : MC/682/2012
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI-11
ASSAM.
VERSUS
Page No.# 2/19
M/S G.P. SALES CORPORATION
MAIN ROAD
BANDERDEWA
ARUNACHAL PRADESH.
------------
Advocate for : MR.N K DAS
Advocate for : MR.B MAHESHWARI appearing for M/S G.P. SALES
CORPORATION
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG
Date of hearing : 11.03.2025
Date of judgment : 16.05.2025
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mrs. U. Chakraborty, learned Special Senior Railway Advocate for the
appellant. Also heard Ms. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent/claimant.
2. This is an appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,
1987 against the Judgment & Order dated 29.11.2011, passed by the Railway
Claims Tribunal, Gauhati Bench in Case No. O.A-1/33/2010 filed by the present
respondent as the applicant, claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 348.75/-
per bag for 2731 bags of cement, which were damaged during the trans-
Page No.# 3/19
shipment of the said goods.
3. The learned Claims Tribunal had allowed the claim application and ordered
that the claimant/respondent was entitled to get a sum of Rs. 7,51,025/- along
with Rs. 5709/- as application fee and Rs. 2000/- as advocate fee. The
appellant/ Railway was directed to pay the decreetal amount to the
claimant/respondent within 2 (two) months from the date of the impugned
order, failing which the amount was to carry simple interest at the rate of 6%
per annum till the date of realization. Aggrieved, the N.F. Railway has filed the
instant appeal.
4. Brief facts of the case is that the respondent had filed a claim application
that a consignment of cement containing 25,140 bags of cement was booked
under the Railway Risk Rate of freight under Invoice/R.R. No. 06/212000715
dated 28.07.2009, which was made over to the Railway Administration for its
safe carriage and delivery to the consignee from LIPL/AKT to SPTR intercepted
at NLP at Railway Risk Rate. The said train note consignment was shipped from
BG to MG at Railway Trans-shipment Point at Rangiya for MG destination SPTR
(Silapathar). According to the claimant/respondent, all the BG wagons of the
train arrived at the trans-shipment point without having Railway seals and card
labels and all the BG wagons were in open door condition. The suit consignment
also arrived at the destination point after a delay of more than 70 days without
seals and door opened condition. At the time of unloading, the MG wagons were
found roof leaky and in a body broken condition as a result of which 5745 bags
of cement were found wet and in a damaged condition. The damage bags were
kept in the Railway premises for granting assessment delivery. On 17/18
10.2009, the loss was assessed by the Railway after a delay of about another 20
Page No.# 4/19
days and as such, the total loss was estimated to the cost of 2731 bags of
cement. Accordingly, the respondent/claimant filed the application claiming a
sum of Rs. 9,52,436/- along with application fee and advocate's fee and
pendant elite interest.
5. The claim application was contested by the Railway by filing their written
statement. It was the contention of the N.F. Railways that the service of notice
under Section 106 of the Railways Act, is not valid as it was served by some
Kedar Prasad on behalf of the M/S G.P. Sales Corporation without any power of
attorney. It was also contended that the loading of the suit consignment was
not supervised by the appellant/N.F. Railways. The N.F. Railway also contended
that the subject consignment arrived at the shipment point with seal rivet intact
condition without any interference en-route and received 115 bags damaged for
which the N.F. Railway was not liable for the alleged loss. The N.F. Railway
contended that the alleged damage to the goods/cement bag was due to
inherent vice of the commodity and that the railway had taken care in regard to
the consignment as required by them. The learned Tribunal on hearing the
parties framed the following issues:-
1. Is the case maintainable?
2. Whether the statutory Notice has been served upon the Respondent Railway?
3. Whether the Applicant has right title over the suit consignment?
4. Whether there has been any damage in regard to the suit consignment as alleged?
5. Whether the Applicant is entitled to get any compensation and if so, what should
be the quantum of compensation?
6. To what other relief is the Applicant entitled?
All these six issues were taken up together for the sake of convenience
Page No.# 5/19
discussion of the learned RCT on the reason that all the issues were inter-
related to each other.
6. The claimant had furnished one sale invoice in their claim for
compensation at the rate of Rs. 348.75/- per bag which was stated by them to
be market rate, for 2731 bags of cement. The appellant/N.F. Railway submitted
that the said sale invoice is not the actual sale invoice and also stated that Rs.
275/- per bag is the actual price of cement which was booked by the consignee,
which was accepted by the claimant. The learned Railway Claims Tribunal found
that after proper assessment 2731 bags of cement were found duly damaged
and accordingly, pass the impugned order.
7. Mrs. U. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant/N.F. Railway
submitted that the learned Tribunal had erred in passing the impugned
judgment by considering the Assessment Delivery Certificate for Shortage and
Damage, without the same being exhibited and by over-looking the reasons for
damage highlighted as much as the packing condition was not complied with.
She submitted that the consignment was booked by the sender/consigner at the
forwarding station under the remarks in the Railway Receipt "loading done in
siding, not supervised by Railway staff, sender's weight accepted, condition of
contents not checked". She submitted that since the subject consignment was
booked and loaded at their private siding by the sender, the loading was not
supervised by the Railway staff and as such, the appellant is not liable for the
alleged damage. She submitted that under Section 65 of the Railways Act, if the
statement that loading not supervised by the Railway staff is mentioned on the
RR, then the burden of loading the actual load or quantity entrusted to the
Railway of carriage lies on the consigner, consignee or the endorsee. The
Page No.# 6/19
Railway was not responsible at the time of the loading and it is the respondent
who loaded the goods. She further submitted that no complaint was made by
the respondents when the said bag was found open initially and that they are
raising this point only after the delivery of the consignment.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant/N.F. Railway also submitted that the
reason for the delay of 70 days has been explained when the consignment
(cement) was booked by the sender M/S Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. from AKT
(Akaltara) Station to SPTR (Silipathar) Station, trans-shipped at RNY (Rangiya)
and intercepted at NLP (North Lakhimpur) as per the request of the consignee,
owing to the Rail Link between NLP and STPR being cut off for a long time. The
Railway authority had to allow the respondent to take delivery of the
consignment at short of destination without realizing interception fees and also
without interception of the said charge and also to refund the freight charge for
the untraveled portion. She also submitted that the cement consignment was
booked on 28.07.2009, in the midst of heavy, rainy season and a delay was
caused which was beyond the Railway capacity. It was also the fault of the
consigner that the cement was not packed properly as per the required norms
and rules, especially when it was being sent during the rainy season.
9. The learned counsel for the applicant/N.F. Railway further submitted that
the invoice R/R number was reflected in both the claim notice as No.
06/262000715, whereas in the claim application filed before the Railway Claims
Tribunal the invoice R/R number was reflected as No. 06/212000715 and as
such the claim application is not maintainable.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the subject
consignment was booked as per the R/R remarks and when they arrived at the
Page No.# 7/19
shipment point, Rangiya, they arrived with original seal revert intact as (SRI)
condition without criminal interference en-route. From the trans-shipment
particulars, it is shown that from all bags received, 115 bags were found in
stony condition from SRI wagon. The assessment delivery (A/D) report showed
that they received correctly 25,140 bags of cement out of which 5,745 bags in
damaged condition.
11. The learned counsel for the applicant/N.F. Railway also submitted that
when the train wagons were examined, they were found on OK condition. The
alleged damage was therefore, due to inherent vice of the commodity, however,
the learned Tribunal had erroneously passed the judgment by holding that the
initial defective loading of the concerned bag is not substantiated by RR as to
any adverse remark regarding loading of the consignment by the consigner and
the same was loaded at the Railway Risk. It had erred in finding that such
damage occurred due to the negligent act of the Railway. The learned counsel
for the appellant /N.F. Railway also submitted that there is a difference of rate of
booking consignment under "Railway Risk" and booking done under "Owner's
risk". The rate of booking of consignment under Railway risk is 20% higher than
the rate of booking of consignment under Owner's risk, whenever applicable.
This is under para 13 of the Guiding Principles for Classification and General
Rules for charging freight of goods tariff no. 47 pt. 1 (Vol.-II) Extract provision
of para 13.0 of Guiding Principles For Classification And General Rules for
Charging Freight of Goods Tariff No. 47 pt. 1 (Vol.-II) is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure-II.
12. She submitted that the mechanism of N.F. Railway for execution of
forwarding note is governed by the Rules 1402 of IRCM, Vol.-II given after
Page No.# 8/19
receipt of forwarding note as provided under Rule 1402 (2)(3) of IRCM, Vol.-II
and issue of Railway Receipt is governed by Rule 145 of Goods Tariff No. 41.
She further submitted that Section 81 of the Railway Act provides that
"Where the consignment arrives in a damaged condition or shows signs
of having been tampered with and the consignee or the endorsee
demands open delivery, the Railway Administration shall give open
delivery in such manner as may be prescribed and read with IRCM Paras
1840, 1842 (i) to (vi) of IRCM-Vol.-II".
But respondent/applicant had not demanded for open delivery at destination
station, rather the respondent demanded for issuing of Delivery Certificate.
Thus, the respondent by his act had waived his right to claim compensation on
account of the alleged shortage/damage.
13. The learned counsel also submitted that once the Railway Receipt is
accepted by the consignor without any protest, the consignor cannot be allowed
to take the defense that he did not, under the content of Railway Receipt with
the remark "Said to Contain & Loading not supervised by the staff", which
clearly indicated that the Railway administration did not accept as correct the
quantity of consignment shown to have been loaded in the wagon at forwarding
station and noted in the Railway Receipt .
That as per section 97, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 93, a
Railway administration shall not be responsible for any loss, destruction,
damage, deterioration or non-delivery in transit, of any consignment carried at
owner's risk rate, from whatever cause arising except upon proof, that such
loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery was due to negligence
or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servant.
Page No.# 9/19
14. The appellant relied on the following authorities:-
1. 2002 (1) GLT 605 in the case of Sreeniwas Basudeo Vs. Union India,
Relevant para 5.
2. Judgment dated 21.03.2018 (Gauhati High Court) in MFA No. 272/2010 in
the case of The Union of India, Represented by the General Manager,
N.F. Railways, Maligaon, Guwahati - II, Assam vs. M/S P.P.
Enterprises, H.B. Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati-1, Assam. Relevant paras
9-11, 14, 20, 21, 24, 25 26, & 28.
3. Common Judgment dated 21.05.2020 (Gauhati High Court) in MFA No.
92/2016 in the case of Union of India Represented by the General
Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati - 781011 vs. M/S Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd. IOCL AOD Zonal Office, Digboi.
4. Judgment dated 17.08.2022 (Gauhati High Court) in MFA No. 15/2011 in
the case of Union of India, Represented by the General Manager, N.F.
Railway, Maligaon. Guwahati - 781011 vs. M/s North East Iodized
Salt (P) Ltd., Bhadrapalli, Gandhinager, Tripura.
15. Per contra, Ms. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent submitted
that the present appeal is not maintainable as per Section 23 Sub-section (2) of
the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 because the awarded decree of Rs.
7,51,025/- was awarded to the respondent/claimant upon the agreed rate of Rs.
275/- per bags from both sides for the loss of 2731 bags of damaged cement,
since the awarded decree is a consent decree, there is no appeal against such a
decree. The learned counsel, in support of his submission has relied on the
Judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No. 123/2011,
Page No.# 10/19
Union of India Vs. M/s. Motilal Gauri Food Storage Pvt. Ltd., dated
27.09.2021 and in MFA No. 76/2021, Union of India Vs. M/s Ramesh
and Co., decided on 27.09.2021.
16. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the
respondent/claimant has locus standi to file the claim application for
compensation because on perusal of the Railway Receipt (LCR at page 1), the
name of the respondent/claimant is mentioned under the column "Consignee"
and therefore can claim the said in view of Section 74 of the Railways Act.
17. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that in view of
the provisio of Section 93 of the Railways Act, 1989, 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. In
the present case, the appellant/Railway has failed to explain how the suit
consignment was dealt with and also failed to prove that the appellant/Railway
used responsible foresight and care in the carriage of the goods. The learned
counsel submitted that the learned Tribunal had rightly observed as such by
finding that the Railway has not explained how the consignment was dealt with
at the transmission point when it was in their custody, and that no adverse
remarks was made regarding the loading of the suit consignment by the
consigner which it was loaded at the 'Railway Risk Rate'.
18. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that when notice
was issued under Section 106 of the Railways Act, there was no requirement of
submitting a power of attorney along with the notice and that the notice was
served by the representatives of the respondent/claimant to the N.F. Railway
Page No.# 11/19
administration within the period of 6 (six) months, hence the essentials of
serving notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act was duly fulfilled.
19. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that at the time of
loading of the total of 25140 bags of cement, it was properly loaded without any
adverse remarks regarding the packing condition and there was no dispute
when receiving the number of 25140 cement bags up to North Lakhimpur and
therefore, the respondents were not duty bound to prove the number of
packages mentioned in the Railway Receipt as per Section 65 of the Railways
Act. That as per Section 110 (a) of the Railways Act, the respondent/claimant is
only responsible to the monetary loss actually sustained for the damage of the
goods due to railway negligence in carrying the goods after delay of 70 days
without any explanation and therefore it was not necessary for the
respondent/claimant to prove how the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration
or non-delivery was caused. That the Assessment Delivery report has shown the
damage, and the price list of the cement bags is shown in a price list dated
15.12.2009 duly filed before the Tribunal.
20. In support of her submission, the learned counsel has relied on the
judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No. 20/2008 in
Union of India Vs. Sunrise Traders dated 27.11.2015 reported in 2016
(1) GLT 447 (para 12).
2. MFA No. 27/2012, Union of India versus M/s. Dey's Cold Storage
Pvt. Ltd., decided on 27.09.2021 and relevant paragraphs are 15 to 18.
3. Railway Board letter dated 25.05.1977 read with 24.09.1991 which are
valid till 19.12.2013 as per information obtained under RTI vide letter dated
Page No.# 12/19
19.12.2013.
21. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the
parties, this Court finds that the main points to be decided are:
(i) whether the decree awarding Rs. 751025/- upon the agreed rate of
Rs. 275/- per bags, was a consent decree and therefore not maintainable
as per Section 23 Sub-section 2 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
(ii) whether the consignment of cement containing 25,140 bags booked
by the respondents/M/S Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. from AKT (Akaltara)
Station to SPTR (Silipathar) Station, trans-shipped at RNY (Rangiya) and
intercepted at NLP (North Lakhimpur) was booked at the "Railway Risk" or
done under "Owner's Risk" under section 65 of the Railways Act, and
whether the railway administration shall be responsible for loss,
destruction and damage of any consignment carried at owner's risk in
terms of Section 93 & 97 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
(iii) whether the N.F. Railways was at fault in the delay of 70 days in
delivery of the consignment (cement) that the Railways was negligent in
the delay of 70 days in delivering the consignment.
22. Regarding the first point, this Court finds that on the reading of the
judgment of the learned Tribunal, it is only mentioned that " the PO for the
respondent railway opposes the said plea and he submits that the sale invoice
so furnished is not the actual sale invoice. He suggested Rs. 275/- per bag as
the actual price of cement which was booked by the consignee which is
accepted by the applicant the though it is lower rate than the rate claimed.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to get 2,731 bags
x Rs. 275/- = Rs. 7,51,025/-". The above finding does not indicate that both the
parties have come to an agreement to settle the dispute but have only come to
an agreement regarding the price of cement bag to be Rs. 275/- per bag. There
Page No.# 13/19
is no mention that the N.F. Railways/appellant and the respondents had both
agreed to settle the matter at the price of Rs. 275/- per bag. Therefore cannot
be considered a consent decree as envisaged under Section 23 Sub-section 2 of
the Railway Claims.
23. With regards to the second point, this Court finds it appropriate to refer to
the relevant provisions of law,
Section 65 of the railways Act which states that:
(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.
24. On the perusal of the documents available on record, there is no such
Railway Receipt stating to the effect that in wagon-load or train-load, the weight
or the number of packages is not checked by a railway servant authorized in this
behalf. This Court finds that if the statement that loading not supervised by the
Railway staff is mentioned on the Railway Receipt, then the burden of loading
the actual load or quantity entrusted to the Railway of carriage lies on the
consigner, consignee or the endorsee. However, no such document is available
Page No.# 14/19
for perusal.
25. It is seen that in the documents available on record, there is the Invoice
No. 262000715 dated 28.07.2009, which shows the risk rate as 'RR' can only be
construed as 'Railway Risk'. This Court finds that the documents found in the
records have not been marked as Exhibits by the learned Tribunal however,
since there is no question raised by neither of the parties on their authenticity
and were relied upon by the learned Tribunal, this Court finds it appropriate to
do the same. At the appellate stage, the appellant has raised as issue on the
discrepancy in the invoice numbers and the claim notice. This Court however,
finds that this appear to be only a typographical mistake, where '6' is typed as
'1' in the claim petition.
This Court also finds that it has been submitted that there is a difference
of rate of booking consignment under "Railway Risk" and booking done under
"Owner's risk". The rate of booking of consignment under Railway risk is 20%
higher than the rate of booking of consignment under Owner's risk. In the
Invoice No. 262000715 dated 28.07.2009, it appears that the rate of booking is
also at "Railway Risk".
26. It is also seen that the submission that the initial loading of the
consignment was defective, is not substantiated as the RR contains no adverse
remarks regarding loading of the suit consignment by the consigner when it was
loaded at Railway Risk rate. This Court finds that the consignment was booked
at the Railway's Risk as per the documents available in the record and was
accordingly, charged for the same. The invoice does not contain any remarks
regarding the defective packing of the cement bags. This Court on perusal of
Rule 1418 (b) and (g) of the Railways Commission Manual of 1991 wherein it is
Page No.# 15/19
stated as below:
"(b) When a consignment tendered for dispatch is not packed in
accordance with the packing conditions laid down in the I.R.C.A. Goods
Tariff or is insecurely fastened or packed or shows signs of pilferage or is
in defective condition, as a consequence of which it is liable to
deterioration, leakage, wastage or damage in transit, it should be ensured
that remarks as to the exact defect in packing or nature of defective
condition of the consignment is recorded on the forwarding note clearly
and in detail by the consignor or his authorized agent in his own
handwriting. For example, consignments of grain, pluses, seeds, sugar,
piece-goods, cotton, tobacco, wool, jute, provisions, etc, often get wet
while being brought to the station premises for loading. These Should be
carefully examined and precise remarks from the consignor or his
authorized agent regarding the number and condition of the affected
bags, should be obtained on the forwarding note, if the consignments are
not tendered in good and dry condition.
(g) The entire remarks regarding defective packing or the nature of the
defective condition of the consignment, recorded on the forwarding note
by the sender or his authorized agent should be copied out verbatim on
all the foils of the connected invoice including the railway receipt. The
staff are not authorized to enter any remark regarding defective packing,
etc., on the invoices or railway receipts, if similar remarks have not been
entered on the forwarding note by the sender or his authorized agent."
No remarks made concerning the defective packing of the cement bags is
seen in the documents available on record.
27. It is seen that Section 93 provides as follows:
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-
Page No.# 16/19
delivery of any consignment, arising from any cause except the following,
namely:--.................
(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;
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."
28. It is seen that there are the copies of the Assessment Delivery Certificate
for Shortage and Damage, issued by station Superintendent/North
Lakhimpur/N.F. Railway showing that it had received correctly 25,140 bags
cement of which 5,745 bags were in damaged condition. However, there is no
document to substantiate the claim that 115 bags of cement of the suit
consignment were received in damaged condition at the trans-shipment point.
This Court also finds that the learned Tribunal had rightly observed that "no
explanation is forthcoming from the respondent Railway as to how the
consignment was dealt with at the trans-shipment when it was in their custody.
Moreover, the argument that the initial loading of the consignment was
defective is not substantiated as the RR contains no adverse remarks regarding
Page No.# 17/19
loading of the suit consignment by the consigner and it was loaded at Railway
Risk Rate.
29. It was also seen that the Railways have tried to explain that the reason for
the delay explained was that the cement was booked by the sender M/S Lafarge
India Pvt. Ltd. from AKT (Akaltara) Station to SPTR (Silapathar) Station, trans-
shipped at RNY (Rangiya) and intercepted at NLP (North Lakhimpur) as per
request of the consignee owing to Rail Link between NLP and STPR being cut off
for long time. The Railway authority had allowed the respondent to take delivery
of the consignment at short of destination without realizing interception fees
and also to refund the freight charge for the said untraveled portion. This Court,
however, finds that though the appellant/N.F. Railways have submitted that it
was fault of the consigner that the cement was not packed properly as per the
requirement norms, it is seen that in the Invoice No. 262000715 dated
28.07.2009 shows the risk rate as 'RR' which can only be construed as 'Railway
Risk'. Further, there is no document to substantiate the claim that "from the
trans-shipment particulars it has transpired that all bags were received correctly
of which 115 bags were found stony condition from SRI wagon." There is also
no document to substantiate the claim that the booking was done under Section
65 of the Railways Act and therefore, at the owner's risk. There is no receipt
produced which shows that an endorsement "said to contain" in the booking of
the cement bags. In the documents available on record, it is seen that the
respondent had issued letters dated 07.10.2009, 09.10.2009 and 15.10.2009
regarding the non-delivery of goods and thereafter, the goods had arrived on
16.10.2009 and 18.10.2009 after a delay of 70 days.
30. That there was no explanation or evidence produced by the appellant to
Page No.# 18/19
show that due to inherent vice of the commodity and packing conditions which
were not complied with, the Railway were not liable since the Railway Receipt at
the time of packing of the consignment had no adverse remarks. If the
consignment had inherent defect of loading or arrangement of proper dunnage,
the Railway Receipt (RR) must bear the impression in this regard the
respondent cited Rule 1418 (b) & (g) of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual
of 1991, which laid down the Rule for examination of packing of goods etc.
Further, Section 110 (a) of the Railways Act, does not require the person
claiming compensation to prove how the loss, destruction, damage,
deterioration or non-delivery was caused. In the instant case, the value of the
damaged goods as agreed by both the parties is taken to be Rs. 275/- per bag
and therefore, no further prove would be required in this regard.
31. In view of the finding that there is also no document to substantiate the
claim that the booking was done at the "owner's risk", this Court finds that the
cited case in Sreeniwas Basudeo (Supra), where booking was done under
Section 65, the Railway Receipt showed short delivery of consignment and the
Tribunal allowed only the cost of the food-grains found short between trans-
shipment point and destination is not applicable in the instant case. Likewise,
the judgment cited by the appellant in The Union of India Vs. M/S P.P.
Enterprises (Supra) is also not applicable since this case again refers to the
weightment of the bags of sugar, which was transported by the N.F. Railways
and the other cited cases relied upon by the appellant.
32. In view of the above findings and observations, this Court finds that no
substantial grounds have been made out to interfere with the Judgment & Order
dated 29.11.2011, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Gauhati Bench in
Page No.# 19/19
Case No. O.A-1/33/2010.
33. Accordingly, the MFA No. 19 of 2021 stands dismissed and disposed of.
34. No costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
