PAWAN OIL INDUSTRIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the appellant/original plaintiff, a registered ownership firm against the order dated 24 9 1991 passed by Railway Claims tribunal, Nagpur rejecting the claim of the appellant. The claim of plaintiff in brief was that it had purchased from V. GURUDASARADHAN 300 bags of groundnut seeds which the seller booked at Railway Station ex NAYUDUPETA R. S to amalner Railway Station as per invoice No 3 railway Receipt No. 733051 dated 7. 5. 1986. The consignment arrived at Amalner on or about 30 5 1986, when it was noticed that six bags, were in torn condition On reweighment, shortage of 164 kgs was de tected In that respect claim was preferred to Chief Commercial Superintendent, bombay on 14 7 1986, but the same was repudiated by the Railway Administration as per reply dated 218 1986 The shortage detected at Amalner was due to misconduct and negligence of the Railway Administration which was liable to pay to plaintiff price of groundnut seeds delivered short with 10 per cent loss of profits, proportionate freight notice charges and pre-litem interest

(2.) THE defendant/respondent denied the status of plaintiff as partnership firm, so also plaintiff's claim for damages for shortage of 164 kgs of groundnut seeds It was contended that the consignor had not complied with prescribed packing conditions, that the booking was subjected to "l condition and loading was done by the sender and the same was not supervised by the Railway staff That there was no interference en route, allegations of misconduct/negligence were denied It is also denied that there was shortage of 164 kgs of groundnut seeds

(3.) BEFORE the Tribunal the parties went on trial on the issues framed The Tribunal found that the claimant has failed to prove satisfactorily that there was shortage during transit of 164 kgs due to six bags having, been found in torn condition at the destination station, Amalner The Tribunal found that the question of misconduct or negligence on the part of Railway administration and its employees does not arise that the consignor had not complied with prescribed packing conditions P 7 A to P 8 a and had done loading of the bags in wagon that there was no interference en route, and therefore, the defendant is not liable for alleged claim for shortage The Tribunal found that plaintiff is not entitled to any damages towards loss of profits, proportionate freight, notice charges and pre-litem interest consequent upon these findings recorded by the tribunal the claim petition/suit came to be dismissed with costs. Hence, this appeal.