0

Challenging the Railway Admission for the Shortage of Goods: Gauhati High Court

Claim the Compensation against a railway administration for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of goods carried by railway serve notice under the Section 106 of the Railways Act is held by the Gauhati High Court Before the HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA in the matters of Union of India v. M/S. Dinesh Sales Corporation. [MFA/61/2013]

The background of the case arises from the Respondent booking railway wagons for carriage of 26458 bags each containing 75 kilograms of salt and 5865 bags containing 50 kilograms of salt. The Respondent freight charge and railway receipt were issued. It was a short delivery at the destination point. 

The Respondent served a notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 stating the Railway Administration for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of goods. The respondent staked their claim for compensation in the Railway Claims Tribunal. The respondent exhibited a Railway receipt are handed over to the consignee till then the consignor is the rightful owner of the consignment. When the Railway receipts are handed over to the consignee then the consignees attain all rights and liabilities of the consignor. Whenever there is a loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of goods, then the consignee shall be entitled to claim compensation from the Railways, providing notice to the Railways under Section 106 of the Railway act. On the other side, the railways didn’t submit any documents to show that the consignor did not load the number of goods as claimed. On hearing both sides, the tribunal directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,41,850/- as compensation along with other ancillary relief. The appeal against the Tribunal is directed. 

The Hon’ble Court held that “The Tribunal had correctly appreciated the evidence, the present appeal is devoid of merits and therefore no necessity of interfering with the impugned judgement of the tribunal” As the Petitioner failed to Prove the necessary documents to show that the consignor did not load the quality of goods as claimed.

Click here to read the Judgement.

Judgement Reviewed by- Kaviya S

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat