Miscellaneous Appeal No. 501 of 2011 · Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.501 of 2011 ====================================================== Kanhaiya Bhalotia son of Sri Bimal Bhalotia, resident of Purani Bazar, P.O., P.S. and District-Jamui Proprietor, M/s Rani Sati Trader, a proprietorship firm having its place of business at Purani Bazar, P.O., P.S. and District Jamui .... .... Appellant/s Versus The Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railways Kolkata .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.530 of 2011 ====================================================== Kanhaiya Bhalotia son of Sri Bimal Bhalotia, resident of Purani Bazar, P.O., P.S. and District-Jamui Proprietor, M/s Rani Sati Trader, a proprietorship firm having its place of business at Purani Bazar, P.O., P.S. and District Jamui .... .... Appellant/s Versus The Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railways Kolkata .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 19 26-09-2013 Since both the 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. Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, learned counsel has appeared for the appellant in both the appeals while the Union of India in its
Legal Reasoning
Ministry of Railways has been represented by Mr. Anil Singh. These two appeals are accompanied with interlocutory applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the condonation of delay in filing the appeals bearing I.A. No. 6691 of 2012 in M.A. No. 501 of 2011 and I.A. No. 189 of 2013 in M.A. No. 530 of 2011. Perusal of the applications filed for condoning the delay Patna High Court MA No.501 of 2011 (19) dt.26-09-2013 2 manifests that there is a single day delay in filing of the appeal bearing M.A. No. 501 of 2011 and 54 days insofar as M.A. No. 530 of 2011 is concerned. 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 has occasioned due to communication gap followed by ailment of the appellant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the prayer made for condonation of delay. The medical prescription is enclosed with the applications. Upon being satisfied by the reasons assigned, the delay occasioned in filing of the appeals, is condoned. I.A. No. 6691 of 2012 and I.A. No. 189 of 2013 stand allowed. Re: M.A. No. 501 of 2011 with M.A. No. 530 of 2011 These two appeals arise from different orders passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna on the claim application(s) filed by the appellants 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 the business of salt, running under the trade name of M/s. Ranisati Salt Traders having its place of business at Purani Bazar, Jamui in the District of Jamui 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 Nawa City in the State of Rajasthan and booked the Patna High Court MA No.501 of 2011 (19) dt.26-09-2013 3 consignment for carriage in rail wagons from Nawa City, Rajasthan to District-Jamui, Bihar. It is the case of the appellant that on the arrival of each of the consignment at Jamui, the consignment was found short. The appellant 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 which are impugned in the appeals. The respective relevant foundational facts governing these two appeals are being reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience: M.A. No. Claim No. Case Claim(Rupees) Consignment as railway per receipt no. Short Delivery 501 of 2011 OC-00282 of 2001 19,175/- bags 1194 booked on 26.12.1999 vide R.R.No.220620 295 delivered 29.12.1999 bags on Consignment details as per Bijak 1194 bags 530 of 2011 OC-00626 of 2000 11,966/- 781 booked 01.11.1999 vide No.173916 bags on R.R. 193 delivered 6.2.2000 bags on 781 bags I have heard learned counsel for the parties in both the appeals and since these appeals raise common questions of law and facts and relate to the same proprietor hence they are being disposed of by a common order. Patna High Court MA No.501 of 2011 (19) dt.26-09-2013 4 The facts leading to the present set of appeals are in a very narrow compass. The records in the claim cases have been summoned under the orders of this Court and a perusal thereof manifests that except for the railway receipt, copy of the notice served under Section 106 of the Act and the affidavit of the appellant, 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 appellants as emanating from the documents on record which includes 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. Identical facts govern both the appeals which are being heard analogous except for the variation in the number of bags which was Patna High Court MA No.501 of 2011 (19) dt.26-09-2013 5 received short by the appellant and which has been detailed in the chart hereinabove. 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 appeals as also discussed hereinabove were subject matter of M.A. 503 of 2011 (Kanhaiya Bhalotia vs. Union of India and others) 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 today i.e. 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 judgment and order passed by this Court in Kanhaiya Bhalotia (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. 503 of 2011 and analogous cases (Kanhaiya Bhalotia vs. Union) to uphold the order(s) passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna and to dismiss the appeals, shall form part of the present order. No costs. Let the lower court records received in the respective appeals be returned to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna forthwith. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J)