MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of the common judgment and decree dated 25/02/1991, passed in application no. 128/OAI/RCT/NGP/90 by Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur between the same parties and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE case of the respondent in First Appeal No. 861/1991, the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (herein after called as 'the Board'), which is the appellant in First Appeal No. 397/1991, is that the consignment consisting of four cases containing electric transformer accessories dispatched by its supplier, M/s. Crompton Greaves Limited, Mumbai was received at the destination station, Kalmeshwar, Nagpur in damaged condition attributable to acts of neglect and failure to take proper care on the part of the carrier, the railway administration. This consignment was dispatched by the supplier by loading it on an open wagon at its own railway siding at Bhandup and booked under railway receipt no. 290660 dated 13/06/1987. According to the Board, the entire consignment was properly packed, both internally and externally. When it did not arrive at the destination, a formal claim for non -delivery of the consignment was lodged by the Board with railway administration on 4/08/1987. Subsequently, the consignment had arrived at the destination and since it was found that the cases were in damaged condition, the Board demanded open delivery under joint assessment from the railway administration, which request was accepted. A joint assessment report dated 4/11/1987 was prepared. It was noticed that 3 HV bushings and 3 PIN insulators contained in the consignment had been damaged in the transit.

(3.) THE claim was resisted by the railway administration. It was submitted that the damage was caused to the articles due to failure on the part of the supplier to follow the prescribed packing conditions laid down in goods tariff and also failure to take proper care while loading on open wagon the four cases by means of a crane at the private siding of the supplier. It was submitted that the loading of the consignment at the private siding was carried out without supervision of the officials of the railway administration and, therefore, there was a possibility of the consignment having suffered damage at that time itself. It was also submitted that the claim as lodged by the Board was time barred. On all these grounds, it was urged that the claim application was liable to be rejected.