HASMUKH RUPANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, being aggrieved by the order dated 11.5.1995 passed in Case No. TA/1612/90, by the Railway Claims Tribunal Bench at Bhopal, has preferred this appeal under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the appellant with a view to transport his coal, booked railway wagon and transported the coal from Junnardeo to Nishatpura, under Railway Receipt No. 929393, which was issued to the appellant on 12.3.1985. A sum of Rs. 4,256/- was charged as freight for transhipment of coal weighing about 54.2 metric tons. As alleged by the appellant, due to'gross-negligence, serious misconducts and carelessness of the employees of railway administration, railway receipt was issued to him after three days from the date of loading of the wagon, the said wagon arrived at destination on 16.3.1985 in some disturbed condition, that is, below the normal height of alleged loading. The appellant at the time of delivery of the goods, requested the Goods Clerk of Nishatpura to give the delivery on actual weight. The Goods Clerk did not respond to the request, therefore, the appellant took the delivery of goods. The request of the appellant to record the measurement of the coal and its volume was also not considered. The appellant thereafter made a request to the Goods Clerk to witness the weighment of goods on Weigh Bridge installed in front of goods shed, but that request was also not conceded. The appellant, therefore, got the goods weighed and to his surprise, found that the coal weighed only 38.230 metric tons against the load of 54.2 metric tons. Panchnama was prepared on the spot. According to the appellant, he suffered loss of Rs. 8,943.20 because of the short delivery and was required to pay Rs. 1,170/- extra towards freight for the material which was not supplied. Appellant thereafter issued a notice to the respondent/Administration and claimed sum of Rs. 10,177/-, including excess freight paid and the expenses. The Administration did not respond to the claim made by the appellant, therefore, a claim was lodged, after sending a notice under Section 80, CPC. He, however, claimed a sum of Rs. 9,007.13 only. The appellant filed a suit before the Civil Court. During the pendency of the civil suit as the Claims Tribunal was constituted, the suit was, therefore, transferred to the Claims Tribunal and was registered as T.A. No. 1612/90. The respondents denied the claim. In support of the allegations, appellant filed affidavits in support of his claim. The respondents did not file any affidavit on document. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the order, against which the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) Contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that in absence of any statement controverting the statement made by the appellant, the affidavit could not be disbelieved and his claim ought to have been allowed. It was also submitted that administration acted in a most high-handed manner because the employees who are duty bound to see that the goods were delivered in a proper condition, were not ready and willing to see the condition of goods and were also not ready and willing to witness the actual weighment.