Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 427 (DEL)

Sant Lal Kanhaiya Lal v. Union of India

2008-04-23

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

body2008
JUDGMENT Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. This is an appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the order dated 02.05.95 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi. 2. The appellant Sant Lal Kanhaiya Lal filed a claim application against the respondent claiming a compensation of Rs. 81,337.50. 3. The case set up by the appellant was that it had entrusted a consignment comprising of 219 bags of Urad dal to the respondent for transport from Vizianagaram station to New Delhi. That the consignment was booked under railway receipt No. 683148 dated 18.05.88. That the consignment was found in a damaged condition on 13.08.88 i.e. when the delivery of the consignment was taken from the respondent. That the damage took place due to gross negligence and misconduct of the employees of the respondent. That it called upon the respondent to make payment of the compensation for the loss and issued notice under Section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure for settlement of the claim. That the market rate of the Urad dal at the relevant time was Rs. 725/- per quintal. That the respondent accepted its fault but by arbitrarily applying the rate of the Urad dal at Rs. 525/- per quintal sent a cheque of Rs. 43,138/- towards damages. That the said cheque was accepted under protest and the respondent is thus liable to pay a balance sum of Rs. 38,200/-(Rs. 81,337.50 Rs. 43,138/-= Rs. 38,200/-) 4. From the facts noted above it is clear that the parties were at variance regarding the rate of the Urad dal at the relevant time. 5. Noting the rates of the Urad dal published in the newspapers (Financial Express and Navbharat Times) the Tribunal has taken the market rate of the Urad dal at the relevant time as Rs. 567.50/- per quintal and on that basis assessed the damages to the appellant as Rs. 48,206/-. It has been further held that since the appellant had already a received a sum of Rs. 48,138/- it is entitled to receive a balance sum of Rs. 5,068/- from the respondent. 6. Challenge in the appeal is limited to the price of Urad dal determined by the Tribunal. 7. To establish the market rate of the Urad dal at the relevant time, the appellant examined one Mr. 48,138/- it is entitled to receive a balance sum of Rs. 5,068/- from the respondent. 6. Challenge in the appeal is limited to the price of Urad dal determined by the Tribunal. 7. To establish the market rate of the Urad dal at the relevant time, the appellant examined one Mr. Ram Avtar, the manager of the appellants firm, AW-1. The gist of his testimony is as under: S No. Contents of the Document proved by the Page No. of the Trial Testimony Witness Court Record containing theDocument 1. i. Consignment was Bill No. 17 dated 61 07.06.88 and 16.06.88. purchased by the appellant from M/s Bajrang Jute Trading Co. 18.05.88 issued by M/s BajrangJute Trading Co. ii. Bill in respect of the said consignment was signed by Mr. Jay Kumar, Partner of M/s Bajrang Trading Co in his presence. 2. i. Payment in respect of the i. Relevant portion of cash book. 63 said consignment was made by the appellants firm on ii. Respective entries ii. Relevant portion of 65 were ledger book. made by him in cash book and ledger book. 3. i. Appellants firm was selling the Urad dal between the rates Rs. 750 and Rs. 775/- during the relevant time. ii. Entries in the sale register were made by him in due course of business. iii. Entries shows the Relevant portions of 79 and 81 rate of Sale Register Urad dal on 13.06.88,27.688, 3. 8.88 and 18.8.88 as Rs. 765/- Rs. 750/-, Rs. 775/- and Rs. 750/- respectively. 8. Order dated 05.05.93 passed by the learned Tribunal shows that an opportunity to cross-examine AW-1 was given to the respondent and that the respondent chose not to examine him. 9. Per contra, respondent did not lead any evidence on this aspect of the matter. 10. Learned Tribunal disbelieved the testimony of the witness of the appellant. No reasons have been given by the learned Tribunal to disbelieve his testimony. Instead, the learned Tribunal preferred to adopt the rates published in the newspapers. 11. The rates published in the newspapers as adopted by the Tribunal is an extrinsic evidence. 12. It is well established principle of law that where intrinsic evidence is readily available the Courts should rely upon the intrinsic evidence and eschew extrinsic evidence. (See the decision of this Court reported as S. Harpreet Singh Chawla v. Ceat Ltd and Anr. 134 (2006) DLT 378) 13. 12. It is well established principle of law that where intrinsic evidence is readily available the Courts should rely upon the intrinsic evidence and eschew extrinsic evidence. (See the decision of this Court reported as S. Harpreet Singh Chawla v. Ceat Ltd and Anr. 134 (2006) DLT 378) 13. Thus, the learned Tribunal was not right in adopting the rates published in the newspapers as the market rate of the Urad dal particularly when the testimony of the witness of the appellant and documents proved by him in respect of market rate of the Urad dal at the relevant time has gone unrebutted. 14. In the light of the evidence adduced by the appellant, I can safely hold that the market rate of the Urad dal was Rs. 725/- per quintal at the relevant time i.e. on 13.08.88 when the consignment was delivered at the destination station. 15. The damaged contents, as per the Joint Assessment Report were equivalent to 108.45 bags: Taking the market rate of Urad dal as Rs. 725/-per quintal, the amount for 108.45 bags of Urad dal comes to Rs. 78,626/-. 16. Noting that the damaged contents were to be used as Churi, the Tribunal has made a deduction of Rs. 13,339/-. Making said deduction, the compensation payable to the appellant comes to Rs. 65,287/-. 17. Since the appellant has already received a sum of Rs. 43,138/- from the respondent, the appellant is entitled to receive a balance sum of Rs. 22,149/ together with the interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim application till the date of the payment. 18. Appeal is accordingly allowed as per para 17 above. 19. TCR be returned. 20. No costs.