UNION OF INDIA Vs. JAIN ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (in short, 1987 Act) by the Union of India represented by the General Manager, N. F. Railways, are directed against the judgments and orders passed by the learned Member, Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati directing the railways authority to pay compensation with interest for the loss sustained by the respondents due to short delivery of the consignment carried by the Railways. The appeals having arisen out of a common question of law, are taken up together for hearing and disposal, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE respondents herein filed applications before the learned Tribunal under Section 16 of the 1987 Act claiming compensation for short delivery of commodities carried by the railways under different invoices and railway receipts under railway risk rates, contending negligence and misconduct on the part of the railways, claims for which, according to the respondents, were not settled by the railway administration, in spite of service of notices issued under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 (in short the 1989 Act ). The railway administration contested the proceedings, amongst others, on the ground that after receipt of the notices under Section 106 of the Act, it has verified the claims and having ascertained the amount to which the respondents are entitled to, paid the same by cheque with the condition that in case offer is not acceptable, the cheques should be returned and the retention and encashment of the cheques would be treated as acceptance of the amounts under the cheques as the full and final satisfaction of their claims. The stand of the railway before the learned Tribunal was that since cheques were retained and encashed by the respondents, it amounts to acceptance of the condition by conduct and hence the respondents cannot claim any further amount, even in cases where before encashment the respondents protested and intimated the railway administration about such protest.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.