SNEH PRASHAR,J. - (1.) Assailing the judgment dated 01.06.1998 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, "the Tribunal"), by virtue of which the plaintiff-applicant (respondent No.1 herein) was held entitled to recover a sum of L 14679/- as compensation from the appellant/railway administration with costs and interest in claim Case No.TAI/196/90, the appellant-Union of India, through General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi preferred this appeal.
(2.) The relevant facts extracted from the record are that the respondent-applicant pleaded in the claim application that a consignment of 24 bales containing woollen goods was entrusted by M/s VXL (India) Ltd. (respondent No.2) to the railway administration at Amritsar in perfect sound and intact condition for delivery at Manauri (Allahabad) which was accepted by the railway authorities against clear RR No.046039 dated 07.11.1984. Respondent No.2, being the owner of the consignment, sent the original RR along with relevant documents to respondent No.3 for taking delivery at destination station on its behalf. The consignment reached in a loose and torn condition at the destination station. Respondent No.3 requested for open delivery which was acceded by the railway authorities. On opening the consignment, 131.95 meters of cloth was found short in respect of which the railway administration issued a shortage certificate dated 18.01.1985. Respondent No.3, having no right, title or interest in the short delivered goods, sent the original shortage certificate of respondent No.2 for lodging claim with the railway administration. Since the shortage occurred due to negligence and misconduct on part of the railway administration, respondent No.2 served notice under Section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 (for short, "the Act, 1989") upon the railway administration provisionally on 15.01.1985 and finally on 13.02.1985.
(3.) The consignment was insured by respondent No.2 with the insurance company (respondent No.1 herein). Respondent No.2 preferred a claim before the insurance company, who paid a sum of L 22,323/- to the insured (respondent No.2) and in turn respondent No.2 executed a letter of subrogation and special power of attorney in favour of the insurance company. After serving a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") on the railway administration for making good the loss, as the railways failed to settle the matter, the respondent insurance company filed the claim petition for recovery of L 22,323/- along with costs and interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation of the decretal amount.;