UNION OF INDIA Vs. AMIRA TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 08.04.1999 OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL IN OC 9600549 WHEREBY THE TRIBUNAL HAS AWARDED A SUM OF RS.80,313.25 PAISE (RUPEES EIGHTY THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED THIRTEEN AND PAISE TWENTY FIVE ONLY) WITH PROPORTIONATE COSTS PENDENT LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 10% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE APPLICATION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION. THE DATE OF FILING OF THE APPLICATION IS 4.11.1996.

(2.) BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS NOTED BY THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ARE AS FOLLOWS:- <FRM> " ....AN APPLICATION FOR THE RECOVERY OF A SUM OF RS.82,237.50 PAISE WITH COSTS AND INTEREST PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE AT 18% PER ANNUM FROM THE RESPONDENT. THE CASE OF THE APPLICANT IS THAT ON 5.11.93 THE CONSIGNOR ENTRUSTED 480 KATTAS OF KABULI GRAM TO THE RESPONDENT VIDE RAILWAY RECEIPT NO.107535 AT WADI BANDER FOR CARRIAGE AND DELIVERY AT SABZIMANDI. THE FURTHER CASE OF THE APPLICANT IS THAT THE CONSIGNMENT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN OFFERED TO THE APPLICANT AT THE DESTINATION WITHIN 6 TO 7 DAYS BUT IT WAS NOT OFFERED TO THEM, THAT THE APPLICANT SENT A CLAIM NOTICE DATED 24.11.93 TO THE RESPONDENT, THAT ON 21.12.93 THE APPLICANTS WERE INFORMED THAT THE CONSIGNMENT OF THE APPLICANT WAS AVAILABLE FOR DELIVERY, THAT THE DELIVERY WAS GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT ON ASSESSMENT VIDE ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 25.12.93 AND THE DAMAGES WERE ASSESSED AS UNDER: 1 150 KATTAS WERE ASSESSED AT 25% 2 200 KATTAS WERE ASSESSED AT 35% THE APPLICANT HAVE FURTHER STATED THAT WHEN INSPITE OF ISSUE OF ANOTHER CLAIM NOTICE DATED 13.12.93, THE CLAIM AMOUNT WAS NOT PAID, THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED. THE RESPONDENT FILED THEIR WRITTEN STATEMENT CONTENDING THAT THE APPLICATION WAS NOT SIGNED, VERIFIED AND FILED BY A DULY AUTHORISED PERSON, THAT THE APPLICANT HAD NO LOCUS STANDI TO SUE AND THAT THE RESPONDENT ARE PROTECTED FROM THEIR LIABILITY. BASED ON RIVAL CONTENTIONS THE FOLLOWING ISSUES WERE FRAMED: 1 WHETHER THE APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED, VERIFIED AND FILED BY A DULY AUTHORISED PERSON? 1 WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS NO LOCUS STANDI TO SUE? 1 WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS ARE PROTECTED U/S 93(F)(G) READ WITH SEC.98, 102 AND SECTION 110 OF I.R.A? 1 WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE PRESENT APPLICATION? 1 WHETHER THE NOTICE SERVICE U/S 106 IS NOT LEGALLY VALID? 1 WHETHER THE RESPONDENT ARE NOT LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION FOR THE REASONS AS STATED IN THE W.S.? 1 RELIEF."</FRM>

(3.) THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE AVAILABLE BEFORE IT ALLOWED THE CLAIM AS ALREADY STATED. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT ISSUE NO.3 HAS BEEN WRONGLY DECIDED INASMUCH AS THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THE DAMAGE TO THE GOODS WAS AS A RESULT OF ANY DEFAULT BY THE RAILWAYS. COUNSEL HEAVILY RELIES UPON THE REPORT OF THE CHIEF PRINCIPAL SCIENTIST OF PUSA INSTITUTE.