Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., a government enterprise, booked a consignment of 27,020 litres of motor spirit at its siding at Bajwa, loaded in a tank wagon under railway receipt No. 27372 dated 9.10.1995, for delivery at Khapri. On 14.10.1995, when the tank wagon was placed for unloading at Khapri, both top and bottom seals were found missing, indicating possible shortage. Open delivery was demanded and granted in the presence of railway officials, revealing a shortage of 801 litres. The appellant claimed compensation for short delivery from the railway administration. The respondent (Union of India) repudiated the claim, contending that loading was not checked or supervised by railway staff, and the railway receipt bore remarks 'said to contain' and 'loading not supervised by the railway staff', indicating non-acceptance of the quantity loaded. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the shortage receipt issued at the delivery station was merely a statement of fact and did not amount to acceptance of shortage by the railway. The Tribunal further held that the appellant failed to prove the quantity placed in the custody of the railway as required under the proviso to Section 65 of the Railways Act, 1989. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The High Court considered the issue of burden of proof under Section 65 of the Railways Act, 1989, and the evidentiary value of the shortage receipt. The Court noted that the railway administration had issued a shortage receipt at the delivery station, which could be an admission of shortage. The Court also observed that the railway had not adduced any evidence to prove that loading was not supervised, and mere remarks on the railway receipt were insufficient to discharge the railway's burden. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the Tribunal to decide the claim on merits after giving both parties an opportunity to adduce evidence.
Headnote
A) Railways Act, 1989 - Section 65 - Burden of Proof - Short Delivery - Where goods are loaded by the consignor at its own siding without railway supervision, the burden is on the consignor to prove the quantity handed over to the railway. However, if the railway issues a shortage receipt at the delivery station, it may amount to an admission of shortage. The Tribunal erred in holding that the shortage receipt was merely a statement of fact without evidentiary value. (Paras 1-3) B) Railways Act, 1989 - Section 65 - Proviso - Loading Not Supervised - The proviso to Section 65 shifts the burden of proof to the consignor only when the railway administration proves that loading was not supervised. Mere remarks 'said to contain' and 'loading not supervised' on the railway receipt are not conclusive proof of non-supervision. The railway must adduce evidence to show that loading was not supervised. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim for compensation for short delivery of goods on the ground that the appellant failed to prove the quantity loaded, despite the railway administration issuing a shortage receipt at the delivery station.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and order dated 15.4.1999 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits after giving both parties an opportunity to adduce evidence.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Section 65 Railways Act 1989
- Short delivery
- Railway receipt remarks
- Loading not supervised
- Said to contain
