Prakash Krishna - (1.) -F.A.F.O. No. 75 of 2002 is under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and is directed against the order dated 19.4.1999, passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Ghaziabad Bench, Ghaziabad in Application No. TA/I/141/97/BSC Lucknow Bench's No. OC-93-01187. The Railway Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim preferred by the appellants herein.
(2.) IT has been stated at the Bar that the controversy involved in both the appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, only the facts of F.A.F.O. No. 75 of 2002 are hereby noted. Mukesh Agarwal and M/s. New Paramount Potteries, the appellants herein, filed the claim petition on the allegations that a consignment of Coal Grade-I was booked vide Railway Receipt No. 013906 dated 27.8.1992 from Amrit Nagar to Khurja City. The consignee was M/s. New Paramount Potteries. The consignment was to be delivered to M/s. New Paramount Potteries through M/s. Mahavir Coal Trading Company. The consignment did not reach the destination, therefore, after serving a notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, the aforestated petition was filed for grant of compensation of Rs. 47,485.81. The said claim petition was contested on number of pleas including that the claim petition is not maintainable as M/s. Mahavir Coal Trading Company is an unregistered firm, besides other pleas raised in the written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, following four issues were framed : 1. Whether the applicant has title to prefer the claim in question ? 2. Whether the claim application is not maintainable as claimed by the respondent ? 3. Whether legal and valid notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989, was served on the respondent ? 4. To what relief, if any, is the applicant entitled? The Tribunal under issue Nos. 1 and 2 held that the application in the present form wherein Mukesh Agrawal was applicant No. 1 in his individual capacity duly joined with M/s. New Paramount Potteries is not maintainable. Under issue No. 3 it was found that notice on behalf of the applicant No. 1 was served within the statutory limit. In view of the findings recorded under issue Nos. 1 and 2, the claim petition was dismissed by the order under appeal.
(3.) BEFORE proceeding further, it may be noted that initially the claim petition was filed by Mukesh Agrawal but at the subsequent stage M/s. New Paramount Potteries was impleaded as applicant No. 2. Challenging the findings recorded under issue Nos. 1 and 2, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the original railway receipt was intentionally withheld by the Railway Administration and as such, an adverse inference should be drawn against the Railway. The contention is that original railway receipt was handed over to Mukesh Agrawal authorising him to take delivery of consignment after its arrival. It was further submitted that there is voluminous evidence on record to show that Mukesh Agrawal was authorised to file the present petition and as such, the Tribunal was not right in holding that M/s. Mahavir Coal Trading Company only have right to prefer the claim petition in question.;