Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1531 (PAT)

Madhu Nahata v. Union Of India

2007-09-18

REKHA KUMARI

body2007
Judgment 1. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment dated 28.9.2004 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata at Patna in Claim Application No. OC-9800149 whereby it has directed the respondent railway administration to pay Rs. 39,700/- as compensation to the appellants on account of loss of 794 bags of iodized salt for non-delivery of the same booked by the original appellant. 2. The appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount. 3. The case of the appellants is that Shree Karni Salts through its Proprietor Chhatan Singh Nahatta of Gulab Bagh, Purnea had booked 794 bags of iodized salt under R.R. No. 308250 dated 6.3.1995 from CHIB to Purnea Court, but due to negligence of the railway administration, the consignment was never delivered. The appellants hence, sustained a loss of Rs. 79, 400/- the cost of each bag being Rs. 100/-. The appellants served statutory notice on the railway administration but to no effect. 4. The appellants, hence filed an application under Sec. 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 for compensation for the loss sustained on account of non-delivery of the goods with interest pendente lite and future alongwith cost. 5. The railway administration opposed the prayer and as is evident from the judgment, on the grounds contending, inter alia, that the cost of salt at the relevant period was Rs. 35/- per bag. 6. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed several issues and after considering the evidence held that the wagon loaded with the above bags of iodised salt, was never delivered to the appellants and that too due to the negligence of the railway administration. The railway administration, hence, could not escape liability. However, considering the rate and freight shown in the Bijak and rate of iodised salt awarded by the Tribunal in cases relating to the period, fixed the rate at Rs. 50/-per bag and awarded a compensation of Rs. 39,700/- only. 7. During the pendency of the appeal the original appellant died and in his place the present appellants have been substituted. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was no reason for the Tribunal to fix the cost of bags at a lower rate. He further submitted that the appellants are entitled to interest as damages for non-delivery but the railway Tribunal did not decide this matter. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was no reason for the Tribunal to fix the cost of bags at a lower rate. He further submitted that the appellants are entitled to interest as damages for non-delivery but the railway Tribunal did not decide this matter. He further submitted that the appellants are also entitled to freight and cost of litigation but there is no order in these regards. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that there is no provision of interest in awarding compensation. The appellants are also not entitled to recovery of freight or cost of proceeding. He has also filed copies of judgments of the Tribunal in Case No. OC-9700665 (dated 23.8.1999), Case No. OC-9800622 (dated 23.9.2004) and Case No. OC-9700245 (dated 24.2.1999) to show that in all these cases the price of iodised salt was fixed at the rate of Rs. 40-50 per bags. 10. As regards the rate of bags, considering the reasons given before the Tribunal, the rate of Rs. 50/- per bag appears to be fair and reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Court. 11. So far the interest on the loss sustained by the appellants for non-delivery of the goods, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on the provision contained in Clause (d) of Sec. 102 of the Railways Act, 1989 wherein it has been mentioned that a railway company shall not be responsible "for any indirect or consequential loss or damage or for loss of particular market" on account of the loss, destruction, damage or non-delivery of any consignment. 12. In this regard the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. S.S.H. Syndicate, Puna, AIR 1976 S.C. 879 may be referred to. In that case while considering Sections 76, 78(d) and 73 of the Railways Act, 1890 (as amended by Act 39 of 1961) wherein similar provision had been made, the Supreme Court held that "the plaintiff was undoubtedly entitled to damages for loss incurred by him because of the amount of money deposited in the Bank being locked up for more than six months". The Supreme Court also approved the Division Bench decision of Patna High Court reported in AIR 1962 Patna 155, wherein it was decided that the position is different where interest is claimed as part of damage for breach of contract. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has also relied on the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Steel Authority of India vs. Union of India, III (2005) ACC 853, wherein considering the above decision of the Supreme Court and some decisions of other High Courts, it was held that the appellant was entitled to interest on the original amount being admissible as damages on the locked up capital for a considerable period and by virtue of the provision of Sec. 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 14. In view of the above decisions the appellants would be entitled to interest as a part of the damages on account of non-delivery of the goods. 15. As regards freight and cost of the proceeding, the appellants did not claim freight in their application and no issue was framed in that regard. Hence, at this stage it would not be proper to allow them to recover freights. However, as on account of the negligence of the railway administration, the appellants suffered loss and in spite of statutory notice, the compensation was not paid and the appellants were compelled to file the application, the appellants are entitled to cost to be determined by the Tribunal. 16. In the result, this appeal is allowed in this manner that the respondent would pay to the appellants together with the compensation amount of Rs. 39,700/-, interest at the rate of 6% p.a. with effect from the date of filing of the petition for compensation till realisation and the total amount must be paid within two months from today. The learned Tribunal on receipt/production of a copy of this order and after hearing the parties would determine the cost of the proceeding without delay and the respondent would pay the cost determined within two months thereafter.