- (1.) This is a miscellaneous appeal against the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, passed u/s. 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1987'), on 27.5.91 allowing the application filed by the respondent and awarding a sum of Rs. 10,583.27 to the respondent.
(2.) As per the facts mentioned in the memo of appeal, the respondent company has been carrying on business of manufacturing articles of iron steel and goods made from iron steel. During the course of its business, the respondent company handed over 46.000 M.T. concast Billets (43 in No.) to the South-Eastern Railway at Tata Nagar for delivery to M/s. Bihani Udyog, Bharatpur. The said goods reached Bharatpur on 14.6.1986. M/s. Bihani Udyog, Bharatpur was given delivery of 41 billets weighing 43.275 M.T. instead of 43 billets and Bharatpur Chamber of Commerce and Industries also issued a certificate to that effect. After some correspondence between the parties and a notice u/s. 80 C.P.C. the matter could not be sorted out and therefore, the respondent company filed a suit in the court of Distt. Judge, Bharatpur, on 15.7.1989, for Rs. 11,513/- on account of the price of the short delivery, and interest thereon to the tune of Rs. 4001.99, total amount Rs. 15,514.99. The suit was registered and notices were issued to the appellants. After coming into force of the Act of 1987, the matter was transferred to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur u/s. 24 where reply was filed on behalf of the appellants on 7.2.1991. In the reply, it was submitted that packing conditions prescribed for the steel consignment i.e. P. 41 were not complied with; number of packages were not counted and loading was also not supervised by the railway staff at the forwarding station, as per the remarks contained on the original railway receipt. It was further submitted that the consignment was loaded at the forwarding station by crane and was to be unloaded by the consignee at the destination station by crane. It was further submitted that the respondent company never approached the railway authorities for re-weighment but took delivery under clear signature. No remark had been made in the delivery book at the time of taking delivery and that the railway administration is not liable for shortage even on re-weighment made outside railway premises. The railway staff did not witness the weighment on private Dharamkanta (weigh-bridge). It was further been asserted that -no loss was suffered by the respondent company due to railway administration.
(3.) Following issues were framed by the Tribunal on 12.3.1991: - 1. "Whether there was a shortage of 2.725 MT of Steel billets in the suit consignment 2. Whether the applicant suffered a loss of Rs. 11,513/- and the applicant is entitled to get it 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to get Rs. 4001.99 as interest ;