Rajes Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Prakash Padia, appearing on behalf of the respondents. By means of the present appeal, the appellant is challenging the order dated 5th December, 2002, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs. 92,614 towards compensation for shortage in the consignment booked by the respondent.
(2.) THERE is no dispute that the respondent has loaded the consignment in seven tanker wagons at its private site and put seals on such tanker wagons. The railway's receipt No. 189838, dated 1.8.1991 was issued in respect of the consignment sent through the tanker wagons. In the railway receipt, the quantity of the consignment was mentioned. At the destination of delivery, it was found that both the top and bottom seals of one of the tanker wagons were missing and on a joint dip taken for measurement by the representative of the respondent and the railways, shortage of 6824 Litres of Motor Spirit was deducted. A notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act was given and thereafter a claim petition was filed. The Tribunal has allowed the claim of the respondent on the ground that the movement of the goods was at the railway's risk and the seals were broken enroute. The Tribunal held that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it can be safely held that the short delivery of consignment was due to the negligence on the part of the appellant.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has not considered Section 94 of the Railways Act, 1989, which provides that if the loading and unloading of the consignment takes place at the private site, the Railways shall not be responsible for the loss.;