Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 749 (DEL)

UNION OF INDIA v. AMIRA TRADERS

2004-09-10

R.S.SODHI

body2004
R. S. SODHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 08. 04. 1999 OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL IN OC 9600549 whereby THE TRIBUNAL HAS AWARDED A SUM OF RS. 80,313. 25 paise (RUPEES EIGHTY THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED THIRTEEN AND paise TWENTY FIVE ONLY) WITH PROPORTIONATE COSTS pendent LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 10% PER annum FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE APPLICATION TILL the DATE OF REALIZATION. THE DATE OF FILING OF THE application IS 4. 11. 1996. ( 2 ) BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS NOTED BY THE RAILWAY claims TRIBUNAL ARE AS FOLLOWS:- ( 3 ) THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE AVAILABLE before IT ALLOWED THE CLAIM AS ALREADY STATED. COUNSEL for THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT ISSUE NO. 3 HAS BEEN wrongly DECIDED INASMUCH AS THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT the DAMAGE TO THE GOODS WAS AS A RESULT OF ANY DEFAULT by THE RAILWAYS. COUNSEL HEAVILY RELIES UPON THE REPORT of THE CHIEF PRINCIPAL SCIENTIST OF PUSA INSTITUTE. ( 4 ) I HAVE HEARD COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT AND HAVE gone THROUGH THE AWARD AS ALSO THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS THE ADMITTED CASE THAT EXHIBIT R-3 IS A DOCUMENT indicating THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD DIRECTLY PLACED THE goods FROM THE TRUCK INTO THE WAGON BUT DOES NOT SHOW that THE GOODS WERE IN ANY MANNER DAMAGED. THE consignment WHICH WAS CARRIED BY THE RAILWAYS ON 5. 11. 1993 WAS DELIVERED ON 21. 11. 1993 AND EXHIBIT R-5 shows THAT THE GOODS WHEN DELIVERED WERE IN DAMAGED condition. THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE ON RECORD FROM where IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT THE GOODS WERE EITHER loaded IN A DAMAGED CONDITION OR DID NOT SUFFER DAMAGE during TRANSIT. ( 5 ) THE REPORT RW-1 ALTHOUGH STATES THAT THE TYPE OF goods ORDINARILY DO NOT GO BAD IN THE SHORT PERIOD OF transit BUT IS NOT A REPORT SPECIFICALLY DEALING WITH THE goods IN QUESTION. IT IS GENERAL IN NATURE. BE THAT AS it MAY, SINCE THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE IS BASED ON THE evidence ON RECORD WHICH APPRECIATION CANNOT BE TERMED TO be PERVERSE, I SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME. ( 6 ) FAO 313/1999 IS DISMISSED. CM 7202/2004 ALSO STANDS DISMISSED.