THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAYS, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI Vs. M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA, M.N. ROAD, PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been preferred by the NF Railways challenging the judgment and order dated 06.02.2007 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati in OA No. 1146/TR/90. By that judgment and order the learned tribunal has directed the NF Railways to make payment of Rs. 2,13,317.00 to the M/s Steel Authority of India, which was the claimant before it, along with interest @ 6% per annum till realisation from the date of filing of the application. A cost of Rs. 3,678.00 was also allowed along with legal practitioner's fee Rs. 2,500.00. Whole amount was directed to be deposited within 60 days from the date of the order passed. Although, an application was filed by the NF Railways under Order 41, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for stay of operation of the impugned judgment and order, but no such order was passed by this Court as because the learned Standing Counsel of NF Railways was not aware as to whether the award was complied with or not.

(2.) The facts involved in this appeal are simple. The Steel Authority of India instituted Money Suit No.189 of 1983 in the Court of learned Assistant District Judge at Guwahati stating that it booked a consignment under invoice No.16 RR No.082695 dated 02.01.1979 and Wagon ER No.85205 from Bokaro Steel Plant to Pandu for a quantity of 55.500 MT of CR Sheets. On 11.08.1980 the wagon arrived at the destination but on verification it was found that the wagon met with an accident and the materials contained in it were in deteriorating condition. The defendant was intimated about the same and accordingly, a committee consisting of Area Officer of the NF Railway, Material Manager of Assam Small Industries Development Corporation, Senior Technical Officer of Assam Small Industries Development Corporation and the then Branch Manager of plaintiff's company was appointed to assess the value of damage materials. The assessment report was annexed as Document No.2 to the plaint. After the assessment was done and damage was ascertained, the plaintiff made a claim on 19.02.1981 to the Railway Administration. Thereafter, on 19.10.1982 a specific letter was addressed to the General Manager, N.F. Railways praying for payment of compensation against the damaged materials to the tune of 15.440 MT. The plaintiff thereafter served notice under Sec. 78B of the then Railways' Act read with Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and demanded compensation. The defendant did not make payment for compensation for which the suit was instituted by the plaintiff for claim of shortage for 40.060 MT of CR Sheets to the tune of Rs. 1,63,044.20 and for damage to the tune of Rs. 50,272.00 and thus, the total claim was for Rs. 2,13,316.80 which was rounded off to Rs. 2,13,317.00. The plaintiff made prayer that the money decree be passed for the said amount in its favour. The defendant on being summoned appeared and submitted written statement. But it is surprised to find that the defendant did not specifically deny any of the statements made in the plaint and did not even file a full-fledged written statement. In Paragraph-7 of this one page written statement it is mentioned that the consignment in question was correctly delivered to the plaintiff on 26.04.1979 under clear receipt. But the defendant remained evidently silent as to what was a joint assessment by the authority under the defendant. On the basis of the aforesaid vague written statement submitted by the Indian Railways, the learned trial court framed as many as six issues and the same are quoted below:

(3.) These issues were framed on 05.12.1987 and the case was fixed for evidence on 08.01.1988. But thereafter, either the plaintiff or the defendant went on taking time for which ultimately the evidence was not led and in the meantime, the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 had been passed. Pursuant to the new enactment the records were transferred to the Railway Claims Tribunal in the year 1990 and thereupon, OA No.1146/TR/1990 was registered. Both the parties appeared before the Railway Claims Tribunal and at that time, all of a sudden the plaintiff filed an affidavit on 04.07.2005 stating that the deponent was warehouse manager of the plaintiff which had filed Money Suit No.189 of 1993 for compensation of Rs. 2,13,316.80 for non-delivery/shortage delivery of 40.060 MT CR Sheet and for damage of 15.440 MT CR Sheet. The consignment was booked in the Wagon No.SE-86205 under RR No.082710 dated 02.01.1979 and Railway Invoice No.W-34 for which notice under Sec. 78 B of Indian Railway Act was served on the defendants. The wagon was damaged in Railways accident and it reached the destination only on 11.08.1980 after lapse of more than one and half year. In Paragraph-5 of the affidavit it is stated that inadvertently the RR No.082695 instead of RR No.082710 was in the notice whereas the materials under RR No.082695 dated 02.01.1979 and Invoice Wagon No.19 received by the plaintiff but there was shortage of materials in respect to wagon No.SE-85205 against the RR No.082710 of the same date. It is further stated that the case has been pending for the last 22 years, for which even Bokaro Steel Plant could not provide the copy of this contract agreement of RR No.082710 dated 02.01.1979. It was claimed in the affidavit that the original RR No.082710 dated 02.01.1979 had been handed over by the plaintiff to the Railway Authority during Joint assessment conducted on 25.10.1980. After the aforesaid affidavit was filed, the Railway filed a so-called additional written reply keeping the space for date of the verification blank and without mentioning the date for filing as well. Be that as it may, said undated document is available in the lower court's record without indicating as to on which date the document was admitted into records. In this purported additional written reply, the defendants stated that notice served on 02.05.1979 under Sec. 78(B) of erstwhile Indian Railway Act by the applicant was against Invoice No. RR No.W.19/082695 and as such the application filed against Invoice No.34 dated 02.01.1979 is not maintainable for want of notice. In this additional reply the Railway did not make any statement as to whether the Original RR No.082710 had been actually received by the Railway Authority from the plaintiff in course of joint assessment held on 28.05.1980 and whether there were still any document in possession. The defendant did not make any mention about any of the averments made in either Paragraph-5 of the affidavit dated 04.07.2005 or about the joint assessment made by the Railway Authority.