UNION OF INDIA Vs. S C SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short and simple, but important question of law has come up for our decision in this matter, indeed, that too on admitted facts.

(2.) A railway accident took place on 16. 5. 1978 and admittedly, respondent No. 1 was travelling by that train which was involved in that accident. Admittedly also, the compartment in which he was travelling was damaged in the accident and for loss suffered by him on account of his goods being damaged which he was carrying with him in the compartment in which he was travelling, he lodged a claim, as contemplated under the Railways Act. That claim was allowed in toto in the sum of Rs. 31,015/ -. However, on that, a lump sum deduction of 25 per cent was made. The dispute, on the other hand, in this petition, raised by the railway authorities is with regard to a single item for which compensation in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been allowed to the claimant-respondent. For two numbers of photometers (AOMIL make) that compensation was allowed.

(3.) THE short question that falls for our decision is whether such an award could have been made in regard to that item. Admittedly, the claimant-respondent was not the owner of that equipment. As a Soil Chemist in the employment of Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. , Bhopal, the claimant-respondent was carrying with him those two photometers and, thus, the equipment was of the ownership of his employer. That fact, he admitted in his evidence.