Judgment Being aggrieved by the judgment and Award dated 30.11.1992 rendered by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, in Application No.9/OA 1/RCT/NGP/92 not granting the claim in full, the appellant/claimant had filed instant appeal in this Court. 2. Mr. Johrapurkar, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the Tribunal committed an error in treating booking of goods as "consignment" rather than "luggage" and thus landed in error in not applying Section 100 and applying Section 103 of Indian Railways Act. He invited my attention to a certificate (Ex. A4) issued by the Railways whereby part delivery was taken by the appellant which clearly indicated that there are no consignment but there is a specific mention of luggage ticket number thereon. According to him, since the goods fall in the category of "luggage" the Tribunal committed an error in awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.50/-per quintal under the misconception of treating the goods as "consignment" and thus there is perversity in recording the finding. He then argued that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding only 6% interest from the date of application in place of minimum 12% since the appellant had lost the goods due to negligence of the Railways and consequently the appellant was required to be compensated by way of damages by awarding interest at least to the extent of 12% by exercising powers under Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure. According to him, the value of the lost luggage, i.e. Rs.69162/-ought to have been awarded by the Tribunal rather than the discounted rate for consignment. He thus prayed for reversal of decision of the Tribunal. In support of his submissions, Mr. Johrapurkar placed reliance on the decision of this Court in AIR 2006 Bom. 129 -Rajen Hukmchand Jain v. Union of India. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the appeal and argued that the Tribunal did not commit any error in treating the goods as "consignment" and, therefore, taking into consideration the new provisions at the relevant time, the Tribunal has rightly computed the compensated payable. No interference by this Court is called for in the instant appeal. 4. I have gone through the impugned judgment so also the evidence on affidavit tendered by the appellant and the documents placed on record. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. No interference by this Court is called for in the instant appeal. 4. I have gone through the impugned judgment so also the evidence on affidavit tendered by the appellant and the documents placed on record. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Upon hearing them, I frame the following points and my findings are recorded against them : (i) Whether the Tribunal committed error in treating the goods booked as "consignment" rather than "luggage"? Yes. (ii) Whether the Tribunal ought to have awarded the value of the lost goods, i.e. Rs.69162/-due to negligence of the Railways? Yes. (iii) Whether the Tribunal erred in not awarding interest at the rate of 12% on the value of the lost goods, i.e. on Rs.69162/-? Yes. 5. As to Points (i) & (ii) : Perusal of the certificate issued by the Railways which is placed on record at Ex.A-4 clearly shows that the booking was made as luggage and a particular ticket number is specified against the luggage entry. There is also a mention in the said certificate about delivery of almost half of the goods on arrival and further mention of loss of half of the goods booked from New Delhi. The certificate also mentions the amount, as aforesaid, of the lost goods. In the wake of the said evidence and in the wake of the fact that the respondent did not at all cross-examine the appellant, I do not find that the Railway Tribunal was justified in ignoring the evidence tendered before it or the certificate issued by the Railways itself that there was luggage and not the consignment. Thus, on facts, the Tribunal committed error in ignoring the document/certificate so also the evidence on record. That being so, the case of the appellant fell under Section 100 of the Railways Act rather than under Section 103 and, therefore, the very foundation used by the Tribunal for not awarding the cost of the lost goods was without any basis. In other words, the Tribunal ought to have awarded the value of the lost goods, namely Rs.69162/-and it committed an error in awarding Rs.50/-per quintal treating the goods as consignment. Hence, I answer point Nos.(i) and (ii) in affirmative. 6. As to Point No.(iii) : The Tribunal has awarded interest at 6% per annum from the date of application, i.e. 09.1.1992. Hence, I answer point Nos.(i) and (ii) in affirmative. 6. As to Point No.(iii) : The Tribunal has awarded interest at 6% per annum from the date of application, i.e. 09.1.1992. A categorical finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that the goods were lost because of negligence of the Railway staff. If that is so, there is no reason why the appellant, who is a businessman, who went to New Delhi for purchasing the goods for selling the same at Nagpur in his shop, should be left high and dry by not making payment of goods which he had incurred at New Delhi. The appellant was doing the business for commercial purpose. The Tribunal, therefore, ought to have exercised powers under Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure and awarded the interest keeping in mind that the appellant had lost the goods for which he had paid at New Delhi, by incurring extra expenses apart from the fact that he lost the business on the said goods. I, therefore, hold that the appellant is entitled to simple interest at 12% per annum from the date of application, namely 09.1.1992 and I award the interest accordingly. Hence, I answer point no.(iii) in affirmative. In the result, I make the following order- ORDER (i) F.A. No.181 of 1993 is allowed with costs. (ii) The total value of the lost goods, namely Rs.69,162/-shall be paid by the respondent to the appellant along with simple interest at 12% per annum from the date of application, namely 09.1.1992, till realisation.