Rajasthan High Court
Steel Authority Of India vs U.O.I on 28 July, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 225/1992
M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited, having its registered office at
Ispat Bhawan, Integrated office Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi
110003 and Branch office at Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road,
Jaipur through A.N. Majumdar, Zonal Manager, West Central Zone,
Ahmedabad.
---- Applicant- Appellant
Versus
1. Union of India through the General Manager, Western Railway,
Churchgate, Bombay 400 020.
2. The General Manager, Eastern Railway Garden Reach Road, Calcutta
700 043.
3. The General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.
---- Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Sukriti Kasliwal with
Ms. Priyanka Tiwari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Dudi with
Mr. Abhishek Singh for
Mr. B.S. Chhaba, Assistant
Solicitor General
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 26/07/2022
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : July _28th_, 2022
BY THE COURT:
1. This statutory appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal
Act, 1987 has been filed against the judgment dated 30-4-1991 in TA-I-
94/90, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur
(hereinafter `the Tribunal') whereby and whereunder the Tribunal has held
entitled the applicant appellant for the cost of undelivered goods to the tune
of Rs.1,38,283.02p, and also cost of suit Rs.9615/- and court fee and other
fee Rs.2732/-, total Rs.1,50,630.02p, but has denied the interest on cost of
(2 of 7) [CFA-225/1992]
undelivered goods, by applying provisions of Section 78(d) of the Indian
Railways Act, 1890 (in short `Act of 1890').
2. The facts of the case are that for non delivery of consignment of 51.33
MT of rounds booked on 29-7-1980 from Dungarpur to Jaipur vide RR
No.804765 in wagon No.CR 73607, which was not reach at the destination
station, the claimant filed claim petition for recovery of a total sum of
Rs.1,90,913.02 as compensation (Rs.1,38,283.02 price of goods + Rs.52,630
interest thereon) before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bench at Jaipur.
Respondents did not dispute the factum of non delivery of
consignment, and counsel for respondents before the Tribunal admitted that
it is a case of complete non delivery of consignment and so the applicant
appellant is entitled to get compensation.
3. The Tribunal as per admission on the part of respondents assessed
value of undelivered goods on the basis of bills as Rs.1,38,283.02p. and
passed the impugned judgment dated 30-4-1991. Although the applicant
appellant claimed interest at the rate of 12% on the value of undelivered
goods, but the Tribunal held that the applicant appellant is not entitled to get
interest under Section 78(d) of the Act of 1890, as it is nothing but an
indirect damage. It is needless to reiterate that although interest has been
denied, but court fee and other fees were allowed.
(3 of 7) [CFA-225/1992]
4. The applicant appellant has filed this appeal only to limited extent
claiming interest on the value of undelivered goods of Rs.1,38,283.02p,
which has already been decreed in its favour by the Tribunal. It may be
noticed that respondents have not filed any appeal against the impugned
judgment dated 30-4-1991.
5. The issue involved in present appeal is only to the effect whether the
applicant appellant is entitled fo interest on the amount of Rs.1,38,283.02p.
from the date of filing claim petition, and if yes, at which rate?
6. Heard counsel for parties and perused material available on record.
7. The issue arising in the instant appeal has been considered by the
coordinate bench of Rajasthan High Court in appeals of similar nature
involving similar issue of entitlement of interest on cost of undelivered
goods. The coordinate bench of Rajasthan High Court in M/s. Steel Authority
of India Limited Vs. Union of India, [SB Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
No.457/1995, decided on 3-6-2005] dealt with similar issue and held that
the appellant is entitled for interest on the original amount of cost of
undelivered goods at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing claim petition
till payment.
Similar view has been taken by the coordinate bench in M/s. Steel
Authority of India Limited Vs. Union of India, [SB Civil Regular First Appeal
(4 of 7) [CFA-225/1992]
No.216/1992, decided on 3-6-2005] and M/s. Steel Authority of India
Limited Vs. Union of India, [SB Civil Regular First Appeal No.217/1992,
decided on 3-6-2005].
8. This court vide order dated 21-7-2022 asked counsel for both parties
that as to why the issue related to interest, involving in present appeal,
should not be decided following the judgment dated 3-6-2005 in M/s. Steel
Authority of India Limited Vs. Union of India in SB Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal No.457/1995.
9. Counsel for both parties have conceded and are not in a position to
convince the court to take a different view than taken by the coordinate
bench of this court in M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Union of
India, [SB Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.457/1995, decided on 3-6-2005].
Neither any of the party has informed that the judgment dated 3-6-2005
has been reversed subsequently. Therefore, this court is of considered
opinion that the present appeal deserves to be decided following the
judgment of coordinate bench dated 3-6-2005 in M/s. Steel Authority of
India Limited Vs. Union of India, [SB Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
No.457/1995].
10. The coordinate bench passed the judgment dated 3-6-2005 in M/s.
Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Union of India, [SB Civil Miscellaneous
(5 of 7) [CFA-225/1992]
Appeal No.457/1995] considering Section 78(d) of the Act of 1890 and
relying on judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. The Steel Stock
Holders Syndicate, (AIR 1976 Supreme Court 879) which was later on relied
upon in Union of India Vs. Smt. Laxmipati (AIR 1995 MP 90) and Union of
India Vs. A. Janardhanan (AIR 1998 Madras 272) and held that the claimant
was entitled for interest on the locked up capital.
11. The Tribunal declined the interest on the ground that interest is
nothing but damage over damages which cannot be allowed in view of
Section 78(d) of the Act of 1890, which reads as under:-
"78.Exoneration from responsibility in certain cases.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of
this chapter, a railway administration shall not be responsible-
(d) for any direct or consequential damages or for loss of particular
market."
12. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. The Steel
Stock Holders Syndicate (supra), considered this point at length and held
that the plaintiff cannot claim damages by way of loss of profits or loss of
market plus damages sustained by the actual loss or deterioration of goods.
In such a case the plaintiff can claim only the actual loss in the value of
goods caused by destruction, damage or deterioration and not loss of profit
being remote damage which is not allowed by virtue of Section 78 (d) of the
Act. It was further observed that where the plaintiff has merely claimed
(6 of 7) [CFA-225/1992]
damages pure and simple and in order to assess the same had applied the
yardstick of charging interest at a particular rate on the locked up capital
for a considerable period.
13. In case of Union of India Vs. Smt. Laxmipati (supra), the Division
Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court held that "the object is not to deprive
the claimant of a substantive relief which he would have obtained had the
matter been litigated in Courts. If in the circumstances of a case a Court
would have allowed interest of a claimant from the date of suit or from the
date of decree, the Tribunal must necessarily possess that power otherwise
the claimant would be deprived of a relief which he would have obtained
before the constitution of the Tribunal."
14. The Madras High Court in case of Union of India Vs. A. janardhanan
(supra) while taking similar view held that principles of Section 34 CPC are
applicable and it is open to Railway Claims Tribunal to award interest as per
Section 34 of CPC.
15. This court in the judgment dated 3-6-2005 relying on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. The Steel Stock Holders
Syndicate's case (supra) held that the interest not being the remote damages
as indicated in Section 78(d) of the Act of 1890, but only damages on the
locked up capital for a considerable period on account of lapses and latches
(7 of 7) [CFA-225/1992]
on the part of the railway authorities and by virtue of the provisions of
Section 34 of CPC, the appellant is entitled to get the interest on the original
amount.
16. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, there is no reason to take
a different view than taken by the coordinate Bench of this High Court in
other appeals, referred hereinabove. Thus, the appellant will be entitled for
interest on the decreetal amount of Rs.1,38,283.02p. at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of filing the claim application till payment and the
impugned judgment dated 30-4-1991 stands modified accordingly. Decree
be framed accordingly. Appeal stands partly allowed.
17. Record be sent back.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
Arn/2
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
