UNION OF INDIA Vs. WAZIR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant. None turned up on behalf of sole respondent who avoided appearance in spite of service of notice at the stage of hearing under order 41 Rule 21 C.P.C. and Limitation Application, consequently condoning the delay, appeal was admitted for Hearing. Notices were issued afresh but met same fate.

(2.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against order dated 30th April 2010 passed by Mr. Santosh Kumar Sinha, Member (Judicial), Railway Claim Tribunal, Patna Bench, in Claim Case No. OC 00455/2000.

(3.) THE claimant respondent has come forward for compensation against short delivery of iodized salt. The only point for determination in this appeal is when consignment was booked and loaded as consignor risk without any verification by the authorities representing Railway at the time of booking/loading. In absence of anything otherwise pleaded and proved about damage caused in the Boggy containing the consignment. Whether the claimant respondent is entitled for any compensation or not.