Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by the Union of India (representing South Eastern Railway, Central Railway, and South Eastern Railway) against an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, dated 24 July 1996, in Application No. 109/OA-A/RCT/NGP/93. The respondent, M/s The Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited, had booked 30 lbs untested steel rails from RMCEL siding, Barakar to Itwari siding, Nagpur. Appellant no.3 accepted the consignment for delivery under RR No. 375092 on 16.4.1990. The wagon was weighed at Harakar Railway Weigh Bridge as 55.800 MT. The consignment was delivered at Itwari siding, Nagpur, but the respondent claimed that there was a short delivery of 1.800 MT of steel rails. The respondent filed an application before the Railway Claims Tribunal claiming compensation for the short delivery. The Tribunal allowed the application and directed the appellants to pay Rs. 1,85,578/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of order and 6% per annum from the date of order till realization. The appellants challenged this order in the present appeal. The High Court held that the burden of proof lies on the railway administration to show that the consignment was delivered in full as per the risk note. The court found that the railway failed to discharge this burden and therefore the Tribunal's order was correct. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Railways Act, 1989 - Section 73 - Burden of Proof - Short Delivery - The burden of proof lies on the railway administration to show that the consignment was delivered in full as per the risk note. In case of short delivery, the railway is liable to pay compensation for the value of the goods not delivered. (Paras 1-5)
B) Railways Act, 1989 - Section 73 - Overcharge Claim - Interest - The claimant is entitled to interest on the amount of overcharge from the date of application till realization. The rate of interest may be 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of order and 6% per annum thereafter. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Railway administration is liable for short delivery of consignment and whether the burden of proof lies on the railway to show that the consignment was delivered in full as per the risk note.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur dated 24 July 1996 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on railway administration for short delivery
- Section 73 Railways Act 1989
- Overcharge claim
- Interest on delayed payment
- Railway Claims Tribunal jurisdiction
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (08) 165
First Appeal No. 121 of 1997
Ms S.V. Salvankar, Advocate h/f Mr P.S. Lambat, Advocate for appellant; Mr R.P. Joshi, Advocate for respondent
Union of India, representing South Eastern Railway, through General Manager (Claims), 14, Strand Road, Calcutta; Union of India, representing Central Railway, through General Manager (Claims) Mumbai CST; Union of India, through General Manager (Claims), S.E. Railway, Calcutta
M/s The Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited, through the constituted attorney having its Head Office at 24, Homi Modi Street, Mumbai and amongst other Branch Office at 2nd floor, Kanoria House, Palm Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against order of Railway Claims Tribunal awarding compensation for short delivery of consignment.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal directing payment of Rs. 1,85,578/- with interest.
Filing Reason
Appellants challenged the Tribunal's order on the ground that the burden of proof was wrongly placed on them.
Previous Decisions
Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, in Application No. 109/OA-A/RCT/NGP/93 dated 24 July 1996, directed appellants to pay Rs. 1,85,578/- with interest.
Issues
Whether the railway administration is liable for short delivery of consignment?
Whether the burden of proof lies on the railway to show that the consignment was delivered in full as per the risk note?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the burden of proof was on the respondent to prove short delivery.
Respondent contended that the railway failed to deliver the full consignment and is liable for compensation.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 73 of the Railways Act, 1989, the burden of proof lies on the railway administration to show that the consignment was delivered in full as per the risk note. In case of short delivery, the railway is liable to pay compensation for the value of the goods not delivered.
Judgment Excerpts
By this appeal, the appellant Union of India has challenged the order dated 24th July 1996 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Application No. 109/OA-A/ RCT/ NGP/93 whereby appellants have been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,85,578/- to the respondent with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of order and 6% per annum from the date of order till realization.
The burden of proof lies on the railway administration to show that the consignment was delivered in full as per the risk note.
Procedural History
The respondent filed Application No. 109/OA-A/RCT/NGP/93 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, claiming compensation for short delivery of steel rails. The Tribunal allowed the application on 24 July 1996. The appellants filed First Appeal No. 121 of 1997 before the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging the Tribunal's order. The High Court dismissed the appeal on 16 August 2010.
Acts & Sections
- Railways Act, 1989: Section 73
