MOHANDAS GOVINDRAM KHANDWANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) This appeal challenges the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur dated 22nd November, 1992 whereby the claim filed by the appellant came to be dismissed.

(3.) The appellant filed a claim petition on the ground that the consignment of 15 bags of Cardamom was booked in a sound and good condition by M/s. Cardamom Trading Company to be delivered to the appellant as consignee/owner of the said goods. The respondent failed to deliverer the same to the destination in quality and quantity due to the negligence and misconduct on the part of the staff of the respondent. It is further stated that after a long correspondence, it revealed that 7 bags of Cardamom were lost on account of theft which took place during the transit while the goods were in the custody of the respondent. On account of such theft, the respondent was able to deliver only 8 bags at Nagpur on 8/11/1986. A notice was served upon the respondent under section 78(B) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 read with section 80 of Civil Procedure Code on 9/4/1987 calling upon them to compensate for the said loss to the tune of Rs.52,715.27/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and legal notice charges. Thereafter, the stolen goods were released from the custody of the concerned police. The respondent dispatched the 6 bags out of the 7 bags booked and they were actually delivered on 10/10/1987. The loss of one bag of Cardamom weighing 180 kg was certified by the competent authority as being short. Thereafter by notice dated 26/12/1987 the appellant reduced its claim towards non-delivery to only one bag of Cardamom having a value of Rs. 17,152/- and other expenses. The respondents refused to pay the said claim in view of the non-declaration on the part of the appellant under section 77-B of the Indian Railways Act. Thereafter during the pendency of the proceedings the appellant carried out an amendment to the petition inter-alia contending that by letter dated 22/24-9-1987 from the Chief Claim Officer it revealed that 7 bags were seized by the police from the thief. It is further contended that there is no explanation on the part of the respondent as to why only six bags out of 7 bags seized could be re-booked on 30th September, 1987 thereby withholding one bag of Cardamom by the respondent. It is further contended that the respondent had failed to take necessary care in the transit of the goods and for other reasons stated in the said application, the appellants called upon the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.28,053.62/- with further interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of the application till the realization of the amount.