UNION OF INDIA (UOI), REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER S.E. RAILWAY Vs. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER KALINGA IRON WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the Union of India under Section 23 of the Rail way Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in O.A. No. 13 of 1994 directing payment of Rs. 2,34,996/ - to the claimant -respondent.

(2.) IT is alleged that the claimant -respondent had booked 20 wagons of hard coke containing 1065 M.T. under Invoice No. 52, R/R No. 898935, dated 3 -9 -1991 from Durgapur Coke Oven Plant Siding to 1. D.C. Siding at Barbil in the district of Keonjhar. It is further stated that on 6 -9 -1991, the train was derailed near Podapahar station as a result of which five numbers of wagons loaded with hard coke had to be grounded to clear the line as well as the train. These five wagons subsequently transhipped to six box wagons and were subsequently sent to the I.D. C. Siding. As per the Railway Receipt, the total weight of the hard coke in the five wagons was 286.6 M.T., but the claimant received only 167.1 M.T. of hard coke as per the weighment recorded by the railway authority and there was a shortage of 119.5 M.T. due to damage, pilferage et cetera. On the aforesaid basis, after issuing necessary notice to the railway authority, the claim was filed before the Tribunal.

(3.) THE Tribunal consisting of the Technical Member and the Judicial Member found that there was no evidence to the effect that 286.6 MT of hard coke had been loaded at the place of loading and in the absence of proof of entrustment, no shortage can be found. However, it was found that since the wagons had been derailed and in the process of unloading and re -loading there might have been shortage and since admittedly only 167.1 M.T. had been delivered, it can be concluded that there was a shortage of 119.5 M.T.. On this basis, the Tribunal directed for payment of compensation. The Judicial Member who agreed with the aforesaid order also gave a separate reasoning in support of the finding.