Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Western Coalfields Ltd., filed a claim before the Railways Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, for non-delivery of a consignment of power cables booked from Tatanagar to Kanhan under Railway Receipt No. 410316 dated 28/4/1980. The consignment was lost in transit, and the appellants claimed Rs. 63,472.88 for the goods and Rs. 200 for notice charges. The respondents (South Eastern Railways and others) denied the claim and raised a plea of non-joinder of necessary party. During proceedings, the appellants sought permission to correct the description of respondent No. 3 (the Secretary, Ministry of Railways), which was rejected. The Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that the Union of India was not a party. The appellants appealed. The High Court held that the Secretary of the Ministry of Railways was already a party, and the misdescription was curable. The court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the Tribunal to permit the appellants to amend the cause title to include the Union of India. The court also noted that the Tribunal had found the goods were dispatched and not delivered, causing damages, and that the claim was supported by evidence.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Misdescription of Party - Curable Defect - The Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim solely on the ground that the Union of India was not a party, when the Secretary of the Ministry of Railways (respondent No. 3) was already impleaded. Misdescription is a curable defect and does not warrant dismissal of the claim. (Paras 6-8)
B) Railways Act, 1989 - Claim for Non-Delivery - Liability of Railway Administration - The Tribunal found that the goods were dispatched and not delivered, causing damages to the appellants. The claim for Rs. 63,472.88 for the goods and Rs. 200 for notice charges was supported by evidence. The appeal was allowed and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication on merits. (Paras 4, 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the claim of the appellants before the Railways Claims Tribunal was liable to be dismissed on the ground that the Union of India was not impleaded as a party, despite the Secretary of the Ministry of Railways being a respondent.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned order dated 11/1/1991 set aside. Matter remanded to Railways Claims Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits. Tribunal directed to permit appellants to amend cause title to include Union of India. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Misdescription of party is curable
- Non-joinder of necessary party
- Suit against Union of India through Secretary of Ministry of Railways
- Section 80 CPC notice
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 175
First Appeal No. 401 of 1991
Shri M. P. Badar, Advocate for the Appellant; Shri P. S. Lambat, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3
The SubArea Manager, Western Coalfields Ltd., Kamptee and other Collieries, Tah. Ramtek, Distt. Nagpur and The Western Coalfields Ltd., Through its General Manager, Jaripatka, Nagpur
The General Manager, South Eastern Railways, Garden Reach, Calcutta; The Chief Commercial Superintendent, South Eastern Railways, MS Building, 14, Strand Road, Calcutta; The Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi; The Railways Claims Tribunal, Beheramji Town, Sadar, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against order of Railways Claims Tribunal dismissing claim for non-delivery of consignment.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought setting aside of Tribunal's order and grant of claim for Rs. 63,472.88 for goods and Rs. 200 for notice charges.
Filing Reason
Consignment of power cables lost in transit; non-delivery by Railways.
Previous Decisions
Tribunal dismissed the claim on ground that Union of India was not a party.
Issues
Whether the claim was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of Union of India when Secretary of Ministry of Railways was a party.
Whether misdescription of party is a curable defect.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that Union of India was represented by Secretary of Ministry of Railways, who was respondent No. 3; misdescription is curable.
Respondents argued that Union of India was not a party and claim was not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi
Misdescription of a party is a curable defect and does not warrant dismissal of a claim. When the Secretary of the Ministry of Railways is already a party, the Union of India is deemed to be represented, and the omission to specifically name 'Union of India' is not fatal. The Tribunal should have allowed the amendment and proceeded on merits.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Counsel further submits that the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the goods were actually dispatched by the appellants and on account of non delivery, damages had occasioned to the appellants and as such the claim of the appellants ought to have been granted.
The learned Counsel submitted that the Union of India is to be sued through the Secretary of the Ministry of Railways, who was respondent No. 3 to the proceedings and merely because the same was not described as Union of India, there was no justification to dismiss the claim of the appellants.
In my view, the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim of the appellants on the ground that the Union of India was not a party to the proceedings.
Procedural History
Appellants filed claim before Railways Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, for non-delivery of consignment. Tribunal dismissed claim on 11/1/1991 on ground that Union of India was not a party. Appellants filed First Appeal No. 401 of 1991 before Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 1 Rule 10, Section 80
- Railways Act, 1989:
