Miscellaneous Appeal No. 915 of 2011 · Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.915 of 2011 ====================================================== Ganesh Prasad Arya, S/O Late Bhagwan Das Arya, Properioter, Shyam Salt Bhandar, Post Office Road, Warisaliganj, District – Nawada. .... Applicant .... Appellant/s Versus Union of India, through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata. .... Respondent .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.918 of 2011 ====================================================== Ganesh Prasad Arya, S/O Late Bhagwan Das Arya, Properioter, Shyam Salt Bhandar, Post Office Road, Warisaliganj, District – Nawada. ....Applicant .... Appellant/s Versus Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata. .... Respondent .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.919 of 2011 ====================================================== Ganesh Prasad Arya, S/O Late Bhagwan Das Arya, Properioter, Shyam Salt Bhandar, Post Office Road, Warisaliganj, District – Nawada. .... Applicant .... Appellant/s Versus Union of Inida through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkat. ....Respondent .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.920 of 2011 ====================================================== Ganesh Prasad Arya, S/O Late Bhagwan Das Arya, Properioter, Shyam Salt Bhandar, Post Office Road, Warisaliganj, District – Nawada. .... Applicants .... Appellant/s Versus Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata. .... Respondent .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.921 of 2011 ====================================================== Ganesh Prasad Arya, S/O Late Bhagwan Das Arya, Properioter, Shyam Salt Bhandar, Post Office Road, Warisaliganj, District – Nawada. ....Applicant .... Appellant/s Versus Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata. .... Respondent .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.922 of 2011 ======================================================
Facts
Patna High Court MA No.915 of 2011 (10) dt.28-10-2013 2 Ganesh Prasad Arya, S/O Late Bhagwan Das Arya, Properioter, Shyam Salt Bhandar, Post Office Road, Warisaliganj, District – Nawada. .... Applicant .... Appellant/s Versus Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata.
Legal Reasoning
judgment and order passed by this Court in Kanhaiya Bhalotia (supra) and Ganesh Prasad Arya (supra). In the circumstances, these appeals are dismissed. The reasons assigned by this Court for dismissing the appeals which were subject matter of M.A. No.503 of 2011 and analogous cases (Kanhaiya Bhalotia vs. Union of India) and M.A. No.380 of 2011 and analogous cases (Ganesh Prasad Arya Vs. Union of India) and to uphold the order(s) passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, shall form part of the present order. No costs. Patna High Court MA No.915 of 2011 (10) dt.28-10-2013 8 Let the lower court records received in the respective appeals be returned to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna forthwith. SKPathak/- (Jyoti Saran, J)
Arguments
.... Respondent .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In MA No.915 of 2011) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Singh (In MA No.918 of 2011) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Singh (In MA No.919 of 2011) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Singh (In MA No.920 of 2011) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Singh (In MA No.921 of 2011) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Singh (In MA No.922 of 2011) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 10 28-10-2013 Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in each of the appeals and Mr. Anil Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-railway. Since all these appeals raise common questions of law and facts, hence they have been taken up together with the consent of the parties with a view to their final disposal. The appeals are accompanied with interlocutory application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the condonation of delay in filing the appeals bearing I.A. No.455 of 2013 in M.A. No.915 of 2011, I.A. No.457 of 2013 in Patna High Court MA No.915 of 2011 (10) dt.28-10-2013 3 M.A. No.918 of 2011, I.A. No.458 of 2013 in M.A. No.919 of 2011, I.A. No.459 of 2013 in M.A. No.920 of 2011, I.A. No.460 of 2013 in M.A. No.921 of 2011 and I.A. No.461 of 2013 in M.A. No.922 of 2011. Perusal of the applications filed for condoning the delay manifests that there is delay of 8 months and 21 days in each of the appeals except in M.A. No.915 of 2011 in which there is delay of 7 months and 16 days in filing of these appeals. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there has been no deliberate laches on the part of the appellant in pursuing his remedy and the delay not being deliberate or intentional in nature, the same may be condoned. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the prayer made for condonation of delay and upon being satisfied by the reasons assigned in the respective applications, the prayer is accepted and the delay occasioned in filing of each of the appeals, is condoned. I.A. No.455 of 2013, I.A. No.457 of 2013, I.A. No.458 of 2013, I.A. No.459 of 2013, I.A. No.460 of 2013 and I.A. No.461 of 2013 stand allowed. Re: M.A. No.915 of 2011 & analogous appeals: This batch of appeals arise from different orders passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna on Patna High Court MA No.915 of 2011 (10) dt.28-10-2013 4 the same day i.e. 30.11.2010 in the respective claim cases filed by the appellant seeking compensation for the short delivery of the consignment of salt received by him, the details of which are given in the tabulated chart hereinbelow. The appellant is a trader engaged in business of salt, running under the trade name of M/s Shyam Salt Bhandar having its head office at Post Office Road, Warsaliganj in the district of Nawada in the state of Bihar. It is the case of the appellant that he purchased salt packed in bags from its supplier and commission agent having its business at Nawacity in the State of Rajasthan and booked the consignment for carriage in rail wagons from Nawacity, Rajasthan to Warsaliganj, district- Nawada. It is the case of the appellant that on the arrival of each of the consignment at Warsaliganj, the consignment was found short. The appellant after serving notice on the respondents under section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) set up the claim cases relatable to each of the consignment found short at arrival, under section 13(1) (a) (i) read with section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1987’) claiming compensation for the short delivery of the consignment of iodized salt. The claim cases have been rejected by the tribunal under different orders passed on the same day which are Patna High Court MA No.915 of 2011 (10) dt.28-10-2013 5 impugned in the appeals. The respective relevant foundational facts governing each of the appeals are being reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience. M.A. No. 915 of 2011 Claim Case No. OC-00236 of 2001 918 of 2011 OC-00247 of 2001 919 of 2011 OC-00246 of 2001 920 of 2011 OC-00249 of 2001 921 of 2011 OC-00237 of 2001 922 of 2011 OC-00235 of 2001 bags on RR RR RR R.R. 21,700/- 18,970/- 18,690/- bags on Claim (Rupees) Consignment as per railway receipt no. 1596 booked 6/7.3.1999 vide No.170262 and No.170267 2343 booked 6/7.3.1999 vide No.170255, RR No.170248 and No.170270 bags 1172 booked on 4.7.1999 vide RR No.172091 1540 booked 11.9.1999 vide No.173120 and No.173109 bags 795 on booked 4.7.1999 vide RR No.172086 1568 booked 6/7.3.2099 vide RR No.170256 & RR No.170245 bags on bags on 22,960/- 21,420/- 23,100/- RR RR Short delivery Consignment details as per Bijak 1596 bags 310 bags delivered on 16.3.1999 2343 bags 271 bags delivered on 16.3.1999, 17.3.1999 1172 bags 267 bags delivered on 12.7.1999 328 bags delivered on 20.9.1999 1540 bas. 330 bags delivered on 24.9.1999 795 bags 306 bags delivered on 16/17.3.1999 787+781 =1568 bags The facts leading to the present set of appeals are in a very narrow compass. The records in each of the claim cases have been summoned under the orders of this Court and a perusal thereof manifests that except for the railway receipt, Patna High Court MA No.915 of 2011 (10) dt.28-10-2013 6 copy of the notice served under section 106 of the Act, no other document was filed by the appellant and even the so called sale invoice (Bijak) was filed subsequently. The appellant had filed an application under section 18(3) (b) of the Act of 1987 read with Rule 20(b) and 44 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) seeking a direction to the respondent to produce the loading register, forwarding note, the original railway receipt, the seal rivet and labels, the outward tally book, the delivery book etc. of the relevant period which, according to the appellant, would prove the loading. It is the case of the appellant that no documentary or oral evidence was led by the railways and that the tribunal even in absence of any evidence to contest the claim of the appellant as emanating from the documents on record which included the Bijak, the railway receipt and the notice under section 106 of the Act and despite non-production of the statutory registers maintained by the railway administration the production whereof, was sought by the appellant by filing an appropriate application, has rejected the claim relying upon the proviso to section 65(2) of the Act. The appellant had relied upon the provisions of sections 64 and 65 of the Act and various instructions forming the Indian Railway Commercial Manual (‘I.R.C.M.’ for short) in support of their contentions. Patna High Court MA No.915 of 2011 (10) dt.28-10-2013 7 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials on record. All the issues which have been raised in these batch of appeals as also discussed hereinabove were subject matter of M.A. No.503 of 2011 (Kanhaiya Bhalotia vs. Union of India and others) and analogous cases and M.A. No.380 of 2011 (Ganesh Prasad Arya vs. Union of India) and analogous cases. This Court taking into consideration the rival pleadings, the statutory provisions and the various judgments governing the issue, has dismissed the said appeals vide judgment and order passed on 26.9.2013. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement in submitting that all the issues raised in the present set of appeals are squarely covered by the