RAJENDRANATH HUKUMCHAND JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 05/7/1990 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench in Claim Cases No.514/AT/RCT/NGP/90 allowing the claim of the appellant-plaintiff only to the extent of Rs.11,697.57ps. Instead of Rs.32,922.60ps., the appellant has preferred the instant first appeal. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the controversy in the instant first appeal are summarised as under;

(2.) The appellant who is businessman had been to Calcutta to purchase ready made clothes for his business at Nagpur. That after purchasing the ready made clothes from various dealers at Calcutta, he packed those clothes in seven bags and booked the said seven bags in 60-Up train i.e. Geetanjali Express vide luggage ticket No.366017 dated 07/3/1988. That, being the owner of the luggage in question, the appellant was entitled to demand the delivery of seven bags from the destination station at Nagpur. He, therefore, presented the luggage ticket dated 07/3/1988 at the parcel office of Nagpur railway station on 08/3/1988 and 09/3/1988 and demanded delivery of seven bags of ready-made garments. The railway authority, however delivered only six bags of ready-made garments to the appellant and one of the bags was not delivered. It was the case of the appellant before the Tribunal that the appellant suffered loss of Rs.32,922/- as a result of loss of the 7th bag in the transit. The appellant claimed that the value of the ready-made garments in the undelivered bag was Rs.29,566/-. The appellant further claimed an amount of Rs2956.60ps. towards loss of profit, Rs.300/- towards miscellaneous and freight charges and Rs.100/- for notice charges.

(3.) The respondent-defendant filed written statement and disputed the fact of booking of seven bags of luggage as also their liability for the alleged shortage and non-delivery of one of the bags. It was also the case of railway before the Claims Tribunal that the clothes which were allegedly lost were costly clothes of terrycot and terelene coming under the category of 'excepted articles' under schedule II of Indian Railways Act and the appellant was not entitled to claim compensation for loss of the undelivered bag.