CHUNNI LAL RAJNISH KUMAR Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether a consignee in whose favour the consignor of the goods has made an endorsement on the railway receipt entitling him to collect the goods at the destination, is competent to file a claim for recovery in case the goods are found to be in a damaged condition at the time of taking delivery from the Railways.

(2.) The present appeal was preferred way-back in the year 1992 against the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") dismissing the claim of the appellant for a sum of Rs. 10,800/-, on the ground that the appellant was not an endorsed consignee for valuable consideration and thus, had no right to sue.

(3.) It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not a consignee simplicitor, but was also a commission agent of the consignor and that in its such capacity, it could file a claim in case the goods were found in a damaged condition. In support, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. B. Prahlad & Co., 1976 RLR 278. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant read as under: