TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this First Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the appellant (original claimant) has challenged the judgment and order of Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, dated 30.1.1991 in Claims Case No.200/AT/RCT/NGP/1990. The said claim was for compensation of alleged shortage of 14.695 Metric Tonnes (MT) of consignment. The plaintiff/ appellant stated that it loaded 363 pieces of 30 lbs rail weighing 51.200 MT from KMCEL siding from Barakar for delivery at plaintiff's private siding at Nagpur under Railway Receipt No. D-41021 dated 21.10.1985. They received only 248 rails weighing 36.505 MT. The consignment was placed at Nagpur siding on 30.11.1985 and thereafter the shortage was noticed. The defence of respondent / railways was of denial. They pointed out that consignment was loaded at KMCEL siding at Bakarar without supervision of Railway staff and hence Railway Receipt issued was with specific mention 'said to contain'. The railway has contended that wagon consignment was delivered at plaintiff's private siding at 1700 hrs. on 29.11.1985 in 'intact' condition and no open delivery was sought. They, therefore, contended that there was no short delivery at all. The Claims Tribunal has considered the evidence adduced and has found that the loading at Barakar was not under the supervision of Railway staff. It further found that packing condition P-41 applicable to the consignment was strictly complied with and delivery at plaintiff's private siding at Nagpur was in 'intact' condition without any disturbances to consignment. It also found that the seal which was placed on knots made under tension was also not disturbed. It, therefore, held that the appellant plaintiff could not make out a case of short delivery.

(2.) In this background, I have heard Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant - plaintiff and Shri Lambat, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 6.

(3.) Shri Joshi, learned counsel has contended that the provisions of Section 73 of Indian Railway Act, 1890, which govern the carriage casts absolute liability upon Railways in this respect. He contends that the mention of 'said to contain' in Railway receipt is not at all determinative and cannot absolve the railways of its responsibility. He points out the provisions of Section 65 of New Act in support of his contention. He has also invited attention to judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India vs. Jagdish Oil Mills, reported at 1992 (2) Civil LJ 81, to substantiate his arguments. He states that the Railway receipts and other documents clearly show that 363 pieces weighing 51.200 MT were handed over to railways for carriage and delivery at Nagpur. He states that delivery at Nagpur was on 29.11.1985 i.e. belated and as the delivery was in the evening, its actual scrutiny was done on next date i.e. 30.11.1985, when the shortage was noticed. He argues that alleged strict compliance with packing condition No. P-41 is totally irrelevant. He further argues that the claims Tribunal has given undue importance to clause 'said to contain' appearing in Railway receipt and also 'intact' condition of the rails. He has taken the Court through discussion by the Tribunal in order to demonstrate how the findings are perverse. He also relies upon the judgment in the case of T. M. Veerappa vs. Union of India, reported at AIR 1972 Mysore 164, to point out the responsibility of Railway administration for loss of goods and judgment in the case of Mohan Lal vs. Union of India, reported at AIR 1985 Delhi 209, to point out the responsibility for short delivery.