RAMAKRISHNA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal at Madras in O.A.I. No. 1643 of 1990. The claimant is the appellant in the above appeal.

(2.) The appellant being a consignee/purchaser of one wagon load of Bentonite powder from the supplier M/s. Ashapura Minechem Private Limited, Bhavanagar sent from Bhuj (Western Railway) to be sent to Karamadai (Southern Railway) on 9-5-1987 under an invoice in Wagon No. 33255. According to the claimant, since the goods did not arrive even after a lapse of more than 3 months, they were sending letters to the Railway Administration on 27-8-1987 and thereafter also. It was only on 4-11-1987, they were informed that only a part of the goods had arrived through a different wagon at Karamadai and claimant could not take delivery of even part of the load of bentonite powder as the entire consignment was totally in a damaged condition and that therefore on the same day, the claimant preferred a claim for compensation before the Railway Administration. But the Claims Officer, without properly appreciating the reasons for not taking delivery and also without considering the other factors resulting in the total damage of goods, had rejected the claim. The claimant again sent a letter on 27-1-1988 fully explaining the circumstances, but the Claims Officer merely persisted in blaming the applicant. A reply was sent by the claimant on 18-2-1988 and more than six months after the arrival of the goods, the claimant received a communication dated 22-8-1988 from the Chief Goods Superintendent purported to be a notice under Sections 55 and 56 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act"). The said notice was illegal and a reply was sent by the claimant on 5-9-1988. Subsequently after exchange of further correspondence, from the letter of the Chief Claims Officer, Madras dated 10-5-1989, it appeared that he was prepared to reconsider the claim, but without settling the claim, the claimant was directed to pay the alleged dues towards demurrage. The said demand was illegal. The claimant further contendd that the Railways was liable to pay Rs. 13,617.69 towards compensation for damage, deterioration and non delivery of goods with future interest at 6% per annum. The loss and damage had been occasioned only as a result of the negligence on the part of the Railway Administration.

(3.) In the reply statement, the Railway Administration contended that the consignment had been booked by the claimant, the consignment was carried to the destination with due care and caution. The respondent also denied that the consignment was entrusted in a sound condition. The Railways was not guilty of any negligence or mis-conduct and hence not liable for the alleged non-delivery. The claimant had refused to take delivery on his own view that the consignment was damaged. The consignee was not entitled to refuse to take delivery and it was open to him to claim for damage due to him only after taking delivery. It was further stated that the consignment was auctioned for Rs. 6,305/- after observing all the legal requirements and that a sum of Rupees 10,793/- towards freight charges and Rs. 62,416/- towards demurrage charges were due to the Railways and as such the Railways had a lien over the sale price of the material. Hence the Railways was not liable to pay any amount to the claimant.