- (1.)Petitioner is the applicant before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai in Case No. O.A. (I) 8/2008. The application was filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,76,720/- on account of the alleged short delivery of the 264 metric tonnes of charcoal. According to the Petitioner, 850 metric tonnes of charcoal in gunny bags weighing around 72 kilograms each were entrusted to the Railways at Koodal Nagar Railway Station, Madurai by the Petitioner for safe carriage and delivery to Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Limited at Therubali Railway Station in Orissa, under railway receipts issued between 16th and 19th September, 1993. The charcoal was loaded in 28 wagons directly from lorries, as per the receipts of authorized weigh bridge at Madurai. Since there was no weigh bridge at the Koodal Nagar Railway Station, the railway receipts contained following note "No weigh bridge at KON, destination to weigh collect u/c if any". However, when the goods were delivered at Therubali to the consignee on 25.09.1993, no further weighment was made.
(2.)It appears, some disputes between the consignee and the Petitioner (consignor) arose much later which also included a dispute on the quantum of charcoal delivered. Thus, based only on the plea of short delivery, after around 1 1/2 years, the Petitioner filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 23.02.1995. Though the same was allowed, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set it aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed the original application before the Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petition is barred by limitation Under Section 17(a) of the RCT Act as alleged in Para 3 of the reply?

2. Whether a valid notice Under Section 106 of the RCT Act, 1989 was served on the Respondent railways or not as alleged in Para 2 of the reply?

3. Whether any partial delivery certificate has been issued by the Respondent regarding shortage of the consigned goods?

4. Whether the Petitioner is liable to get any compensation or not?

5. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for any interest as claimed in the petition?

6. To what relief, if any?

(3.)The issue No. 1 on limitation was answered in favour of the Petitioner. Issue No. 2 was answered against the Petitioner holding that no notice Under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 was served on the Railways. Issue No. 3 was also answered against the Petitioner and in favour of the Respondent holding that the consignee had taken delivery of the entire consignment under clear receipt and without any protest and, hence, there was no question of any partial delivery certificate. Issue Nos. 4 and 5 were also answered against the Petitioner. Thus, the application was dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal by judgment dated 14.12.2010.