UNION OF INDIA Vs. DINESH SAHU MAHADEO DRESSES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 23 (1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against judgment and order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, dated 17.1.1996 allowing in part the claim of the respondent to the extent of Rs. 15,000.

(2.) The respondent Dinesh Sahu Maha-deo Dresses, Rusera, filed application claiming compensation of Rs. 29,325 for non-delivery of one bag containing R.M. cloth. The appellant did not deny that the goods had not been delivered. It, however, denied its responsibility for non-delivery on the ground that the consignment contained excepted articles and the respondent had failed to give declaration of its value and pay the percentage charge as envisaged under Section 77-B of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (in short 'the Act'). The Tribunal held that non-delivery is distinct from loss and does not fall within the ambit of Section 77-B of the Act. The railway is responsible for non-delivery of even excepted articles even though no declaration of its value had been made and the percentage charges paid under Section 77-B. Accordingly, the respondent's claim was allowed but only to the extent of Rs. 15,000, besides interest at the rate of 12 per cent, if the decretal amount is not paid within the period of 90 days.

(3.) Mr. A.B. Ojha, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that non-delivery is the consequence of loss of the goods, therefore, every case of non-delivery is a case of loss, the provisions of Section 77-B of the Railways Act are, therefore, applicable. He relied on Union of India v. Kailash Chand Jain & Co., 1985 ACJ 153 (Allahabad). It may be mentioned here that the Tribunal has noticed the aforesaid case but preferred to rely on Union of India v. Jetmall Sukanraj, AIR 1972 Madras 134 and Union of India v. K. Mansukhram & Sons, AIR 1979 Gujarat 176.