UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUNRISE TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 preferred by N.F. Railways challenging the judgment and award dated 30.07.2007 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal at Guwahati in O.A. No. 459/2000. By that judgment, the learned Tribunal directed the railway authorities to make payment of compensation to the claimant respondent to the tune of Rs. 71,400/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum if the payment is not made within a period of 60 days from the date of order.

(2.) Respondent M/s Sunrise Traders filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal at Guwahati stating that it is owner of 951 packets of onion booked in safe, sound and secured condition meeting all legal formalities as per railway rules at Manmad Railway Station in Maharashtra. The consignment was booked by Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited for delivery at New Guwahati. The booking was made on 20/22.03.2000 and same was delivered on 04.04.2000 whereupon it was found that the wagon doors were kept open, wagon roof was leaky and also water marked condition on the roofs and side walls. The consignment was found wet damaged and in rotten condition emitting foul smell. Wagon seals were absent and on unloading of 441 packets of onion were found to be in total damaged condition. The claimant, therefore, claimed Rs. 99,960/- for 14280 Kg. of onions at the rate of Rs. 7/- per Kg.

(3.) Upon receipt of such claim petition, O.A. No. 459/2000 was registered and notices were issued to the N.F. Railway who appeared and submitted written statement on 21.03.2002. In paragraph 3 of the reply the N.F. Railway claimed that the wagon holding the onion consignment arrived at destination station with original seals and rivets intact condition without any interference enroute. Rather, the alleged damage to the goods was due to loading of already damaged goods by the sender at forwarding station and as such respondent is not at all liable for any compensation. Subsequently, on 17.07.2007 an additional written statement was submitted stating that the railway receipt shows that 'said to contain' clause would apply to the consignment and that it was a case of direct loading from truck to wagon. It was further mentioned that doors of the wagon were kept open at the specific request of the sender at his own risk as regard to pilferages. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the Railway Claims Tribunal framed as many as 4 (four) issues as follows:-