Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2396 (BOM)

Union Of India v. Tata Iron & Steel Co Ltd.

2019-10-17

ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI

body2019
JUDGMENT Anuja Prabhudessai, J. - The appellant herein has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 3.6.1996 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in Case No. OC 9400212. By the impugned judgment the Railway Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.73,168/- with interest @ 12 % per anum from the date of application till final payment. 2. The respondent had filed a claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.1,14,554.30 ps. for short delivery of consign32 wp 2111-19(signed).pdfment covered by RR No. 013088 dated 27.5.1991, Ex. Tata Nagar, Jamshedpur to Kalambali, Bombay. It was the case of the respondent that 56.830 metric tons of B.P. Sheets worth Rs. 6,48,430.30 were booked at railway risk rate. The respondent had claimed that the goods were delivered in broken and tampered conditions. The respondent had asked the appellant for open delivery after reweighment, but the said request was declined. After taking the delivery of the consignment, the same was reweighed on 24.6.1991 by Indian Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., and the Central Railways Administration was requested to depute its Inspector for joint inspection of the reweighment. The reweighment was carried out on 24.6.1991. The report indicates that the consignment weighed only 50.300 mts. The respondent had claimed that short delivery was on account of negligence of the appellant. Hence, a statutory notice was served on the appellant. Since there was no response, the respondent filed claim application for compensation of Rs.74,507.50. 3. The appellant denied any negligence on its part and further claimed that consignment was loaded and unloaded by the respondent. The appellant further claimed that the consignment was not properly packed and further disputed that there was shortage of consignment. 4. Upon considering the evidence on record, the Railway Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that the Railway had supervised the loading and witnessed the weighing process before issuing the RR. The Railways Claim Tribunal has observed that there was shortage of consignment delivered and held that the appellant Union is liable to pay to the respondent sum of Rs.73,168/- with interest @12% per anum. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 5. Shri Pandian, the learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the respondent had failed to prove that 58.830 mts. Hot Rolled Sheets were covered under RR No.013088. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 5. Shri Pandian, the learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the respondent had failed to prove that 58.830 mts. Hot Rolled Sheets were covered under RR No.013088. He submits that the respondent has failed to establish shortage of consignment and further that it was delivered in damaged condition. 6. I have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 7. The records indicate that the respondent had examined Prabhakar Ghosalkar, Stockyard incharge of the respondent. His evidence indicates that 7 bundles of Hot Rolled Sheets were booked under railway receipt. At destination point, two bundles were found in loose tampered condition. This was immediately brought to the notice of the railway staff. He has stated that the request for reweighment was also turned down by the appellant and hence they had no other option, but to arrange reweighment by independent surveyor. He has deposed that the report of the independent surveyor indicated that there was shortage of 6.530 metric tons of subject consignment. He has deposed that the appellant was solely responsible for short delivery. 8. The RR at Exh.5 clearly indicates that the railways had supervised the loading and had signed the consignment before issuance of RR. The goods were received in loose and damaged condition. Though the respondent had requested the Railway Authority for reweighment in accordance with Rule 3 of Weighment of Consignments (in wagon load or train load) Rules 1990, the Railway Authorities had disallowed the request. Said rejection was in clear violation of Rule 3 and 4 of the aforesaid rules. Hence there was no other option for the respondent, but to take delivery of the consignment as offered and get it reweighed. The evidence of this witness substantiates the case of short delivery of consignment and further that the goods were received in damaged condition. These goods were booked at the risk of the railway. Hence the appellant is under an obligation to indemnify the respondent for loss arising out of short delivery/damage. Hence, there is no scope for interference with the impugned judgment and order under appeal. The appeal has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.