Madhya Pradesh High Court
Union Of India & Ors. vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. on 28 May, 2024
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 28 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 1205 of 2001
BETWEEN:-
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL
MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY, CALCULTTA
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, WESTERN RAILWAY
CHURCHGATE, BOMBAY (MAHARASHTRA)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI ABHINAV SUNIL KHERDIKAR WITH MS.KANAK GAHARWAR-
ADVOCATES)
AND
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.
ISPAT BHAWAN, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI (
.....RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENTS BY SHRI SUSHIL BAHADUR SINGH - ADVOCATE)
Reserved on : 29.02.2024
Pronounced on: 28.5.2024.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on
for pronouncement this day, JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR
SINGHpassed the following:
ORDER
This Misc.Appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,
1987 against the order dated 16.5.2001 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bhopal in O.A.No.257/1993 [Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Union of
India and another] whereby it has been ordered that amount of Rs.9199.80 P
being the value of the shortage of consignment under RR N.476462 dated
09.5.1990 from Durgapur Steel Plant to Laxmibai Nagar alongwith interest at the
rate of 9% pa. from the date of filing of application in the Railway Claims
Tribunal (for short the "Tribunal") till the date of realisation as also with
proportionate cost to be paid to the respondent by the appellants/Railway.
2 . Facts as averred by the appellants in appeal, in brief are that
respondent booked a box wagon Pig Iron from Durgapur Plant siding to Laxmi
Bai Nagar as per RR No.476462 dated 09.5.1990. The Railway had no weigh
bridge at private siding. The box reached in the same condition in which it was
loaded and was delivered under clear signature on 06.6.1990. After taking
delivery of the box wagon the respondent applied for re-weighment. The Station
Master directed the respondent to apply to the Divisional Commercial Manager
which was not done. The respondent unloaded the goods and got it weighed
privately and thereafter claimed shortage of 2.280 MT. The appellants denied
the claim of respondent. The Tribunal passed the impugned order in favour of
respondent-Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL).
3. The grounds of appeal are that claim was time bared with a delay
of 21 days. The application for condonation of delay was not filed with the
claim application but the same was filed later, therefore, condonation of delay
by the Tribunal was bad in law. The application was not signed by the
competent authority of the SAIL. The notice served on the appellant was not
proper. The appellant filed copy of delivery books to prove delivery under
clear signature but it has erroneously been disbelieved. No remark was made in
the delivery book that consignment was taken under protest. It was not proved
that all material which was booked was taken through trucks only after removal
of goods from Railway premises and, therefore, the Railway is not liable for
such shortage. Hence, the order passed by the Tribunal be set aside.
4 . Learned counsel for the respondent/SAIL supported the order
passed by the Tribunal and claimed dismissal of this appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
a s also appreciated the grounds urged in the appeal. It is seen that Railway
Claims Tribunal has dealt with each and every factual situation. The aspect of
condonation of delay has been properly explained and rightly exercised by the
Tribunal. The delay was not of inordinate period and according to appellants
themselves it was only of 21 days, which in the facts and circumstances has
been properly condoned while deciding Issue No.1 relating to limitation.
6. Another ground which has been raised in appeal is that Railway is
not liable to pay because no remark has been made that goods were off-loaded
and taken under protest but on this aspect there is ample documentary evidence
to establish that when the concerned Officer of the SAIL suspected shortage in
book consignment, he protested and on his application remark was made for
getting consignment re-weighed but he was made to approach the Senior
Officer (Senior DCM/RTM) and get permission and on this aspect there is note
on the application and thereafter the SAIL went for private approved Surveyor
for re-weighment, which cannot be faulted against SAIL.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, in the situation at hand, in
which the SAIL was put in, they did not commit any error in going for a private
surveyor. It is to be remembered that like Railways, the respondent-SAIL is
also not a private organization. It is a Government of India enterprises. The
claim was less than Rs.10,000/- and it would be in the best interest of Railways
to have solved this matter amicably as goods services and cooperation
throughout is a hallmark of any big organization who wants to expand their
business horizon. The decision of the Claims Tribunal is very balanced and well
reasoned.
7. It is also to be noted that various grounds which have been raised
before this Court should have been contested before the the Railway Claims
Tribunal as no new ground can be made before this Court which were never
raised or objected to by the appellant before the Claims Tribunal.
8. In the result, appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
RM
