- (1.) HEARD Ms. Deep Shikha, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. R. K. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the Respondents.
(2.) AS the common questions of facts and law are involved in the aforementioned cases, they are taken up together for common or­ders. The respondents preferred cases before the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking com­pensation on account of damage to the ce­ment bags. The appellant-resisted the claim on the ground that the consignment was ac­cepted for carriage under Protective Risk Rate Remarks, which was accepted by the con­signor/consignee and no protest was lodged on this score either by the consignee or con­signor. It was further claimed by the appel­lant that the respondent being a regular cus­tomer was in full knowledge that there are no covered sheds for such inwards consign­ments at Mohanlalganj. The date of booking did not relate to the monsoon period. After considering all these aspects, the Tribunal passed the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the aforesaid appeals have been filed.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants sub­mits that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration that the consignment reached the destination without any transit delay or negligence on the part of the appellant-re­spondent or any interference en route and con­sequently, the appellant cannot be held liable for losses, if any, occurred to the respondent on account of damage to the cement bags. Moreover, The date of booking of the con­signment and its delivery did not relate to the monsoon period. The Tribunal further failed to take into consideration that the damage to the cement bags occurred on account of sud­den cloud burst, which is an act of God and on which the railway administration had no control and consequently the impugned or­der dated 2.6.2003 has been passed in viola­tion of provisions of Section 93 (a) of the Railway Act, 1989.;