Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 326 (MP)

Rashid Khan Majid Khan v. Union of India

2005-03-02

S.L.JAIN

body2005
ORDER S.L. Jain, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the Order dated 1-2-1996, passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in Original Application No. 311/92 partly awarding the claim for compensation the appellant/claimant has filed this appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal pithily narrated are thus :- 1. Onion contained in 451 bags were booked by the appellant on 30-4-1990 vide RR No. 988735/5 from Khandwa to Naini. The distance between forwarding station and destination station was 785 Kms. Normally the transit time was 5 days but with undue delay the goods reached at the destination station on 25-5-1990 and were delivered on the next day. At the destination station, at the time of delivery the goods were found damaged and the damage certificate was given which is on record. The damage was of 5810 kgs. The appellant has filed the petition claiming Rs. 12,241/- as price of the goods. 2. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record and the circumstances of the case recorded a finding that the market price of the goods at the relevant time was Rs. 9,000/- . The appellant also claimed Rs. 16, 304/- as interest prior to the filing of the claim petition. The same was refused by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 9,000/- towards damages with pendente-lite and future interest @10% per annum. The Tribunal also awarded a cost of Rs. 500/- to the appellant. 3. I have heard Ku. Praagalbh Lata Shrivastava, Learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri S. P. Sinha, counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that in the affidavit filed by the appellant it was specifically stated that the price of onion was Rs. 4 per Kg at Naini Station at the relevant time. No affidavit was filed by the respondent in the rebuttal. When the Tribunal itself has recorded a finding that 5,810 Kgs of onion were damaged, the total compensation comes to 5810 x 4 = Rs. 23,240. Therefore, the Tribunal must have awarded Rs. 23,240 towards damages. 5. The contention is not acceptable. The appellant did not file any Beejak. In the document Ex. A-1 it has been specifically mentioned that the rate quoted by the appellant was Rs. 60/- per katta. Admittedly, each katta contained 40 Kgs. of onion. 23,240. Therefore, the Tribunal must have awarded Rs. 23,240 towards damages. 5. The contention is not acceptable. The appellant did not file any Beejak. In the document Ex. A-1 it has been specifically mentioned that the rate quoted by the appellant was Rs. 60/- per katta. Admittedly, each katta contained 40 Kgs. of onion. Thus, the rate of the onion comes to Rs. 1.50 per Kilogram. As 5810/- Kgs of onion was damaged, the total cost of the onion comes to less than Rs. 9,000/- . However the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 9,000/- , therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be inadequate or improper. 6. Regarding interest, Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the claim was not properly settled within the reasonable time, therefore, the claimant is entitled to interest. 7. The Tribunal has refused the interest on the ground that no custom, usage or agreement regarding interest was pleaded or proved. 8. In this regard, Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in the absence of any agreement or usage regarding interest, the appellant is entitled to interest from the date of service of the notice. 9. I have perused the notice dated 1-10-1990. In the notice no claim for interest was made, therefore, the service of notice claiming compensation only does not entitle the appellant to interest. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant last contended that the Tribunal awarded compensation from the date of the filing of the petition. Endorsement on the top of the petition reveals that it was filed on 28-7-1992 but by inadveitence it has been mentioned in the award of the Tribunal that it was filed on 28-7-1995. 11. It is apparently an accidental slip; therefore, I find force in the contention of the counsel for the appellant. The appellant is entitled to pendente-lite inter w.e.f. 28-7-1992 instead of 28-7-1995. 12. On the basis of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal so far as it relates to enhancement of compensation of amount or award of interest prior to the filing of the claim petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. However, pendente-lite interest shall be payable from 28-7-1992 instead of 28-7-1995. 13. Parties shall bear their own cost.