Miscellaneous Appeal No. 481 of 2012 · Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.481 of 2012 ====================================================== Binod Kumar Jalan S/O Late Madan Lal Jalan resident of Mohalla and P.S. Warsaliganj, District Nawada (Bihar) The Union of India through G.M. Eastern Railway at Kolkata. Versus .... .... Appellant/s .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.483 of 2012 ====================================================== Binod Kumar Jalan S/O Late Madan Lal Jalan resident of Mohalla and P.S. Warsaliganj, District Nawada (Bihar) The Union of India through G.M. Eastern Railway at Kolkata. Versus .... .... Appellant/s .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.484 of 2012 ====================================================== Binod Kumar Jalan S/O Late Madan Lal Jalan resident of Mohalla and P.S. Warsaliganj, District Nawada (Bihar) The Union of India through G.M. Eastern Railway at Kolkata. Versus .... .... Appellant/s .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.485 of 2012 ====================================================== Binod Kumar Jalan S/O Late Madan Lal Jalan resident of Mohalla and P.S. Warsaliganj, District Nawada (Bihar) The Union of India through G.M. Eastern Railway at Kolkata. Versus .... .... Appellant/s .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.486 of 2012 ====================================================== Binod Kumar Jalan S/O Late Madan Lal Jalan resident of Mohalla and P.S.
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court MA No.481 of 2012 (5) dt.13-11-2013 2 Warsaliganj, District Nawada (Bihar) The Union of India through G.M. Eastern Railway at Kolkata. Versus .... .... Appellant/s .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.487 of 2012 ====================================================== Binod Kumar Jalan S/O Late Madan Lal Jalan resident of Mohalla and P.S. Warsaliganj, District Nawada (Bihar) Versus .... .... Appellant/s The Union of India through G.M. Eastern Railway at Kolkata
Legal Reasoning
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 05. 13-11-2013 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. Mr. Ramakant Yadav, learned counsel has appeared for the appellant in each of the appeals while the Union of India in its Ministry of Railways has been represented by Mr. Anil Singh. The 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. 6564 of 2012 in M.A. No. 481 of 2012, I.A. No. 6569 of 2012 in M.A. No. 483 of 2012, I.A. No. 6565 of 2012 in M.A. No. 484 of 2012, I.A. No. 6572 of 2012 in M.A. No. 485 of 2012, I.A. No. 6570 of 2012 in M.A. No. 486 of 2012 and I.A. No. 6566 of 2012 in M.A. No. 487 of 2012. Perusal of the applications filed for condoning the delay manifests that there is a delay in filing of these appeals which varies up to 34 days. Patna High Court MA No.481 of 2012 (5) dt.13-11-2013 3 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 being trivial 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, the delay occasioned in filing of each of the appeals, is condoned. I.A. No. 6564 of 2012, I. A. No. 6569 of 2012, I.A. No. 6565 of 2012, I.A. No. 6572 of 2012, I.A. No. 6570 of 2012 and I.A. No. 6566 of 2012 stand allowed. Reg: M.A. No. 481 of 2012 & analogous appeals: This batch of appeals arise from different orders passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in the Claim Cases filed by the appellants seeking compensation for the short delivery of the consignment of salt received by them, 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. Shree Bihariji Enterprises having its office and works at Post Office Road and P.S. Warisaliganj, District-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 Sambhar Lake and Nawa City in the State of Rajasthan and booked the consignment for carriage in rail wagons from Kuchaman City and Thathna Mithri, Rajasthan to Warsaliganj, District-Nawada. It is the case of the appellant that on the arrival of each of the consignment at Warsaliganj, District-Nawada, 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 Patna High Court MA No.481 of 2012 (5) dt.13-11-2013 4 (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 each of the appeals are being reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience: M.A. No. Claim Case No. Claim (Rupees) Consignment as per railway receipt no. 481 of 2012 OC-00532 of 2001 12,480/- Short Delivery Consignment details as per Bijak 976 bags 976 bags booked on 4.8.2000 vide R.R.No.217032 192 bags delivered on 11.8.2000 483 of 2012 OC-00534 of 2001 10,920/- 784 bags booked on 4/5.8.2000 vide R.R. No.219555 168 bags delivered on 10.08.2000 784 bags 484 of 2012 OC-00537 of 2001 10,530/- 485 of 2012 OC-00538 of 2001 11,310/- 486 of 2012 OC-00533 of 2001 11,570/- 487 of 2012 OC-00536 of 2001 13,390/- 784 bags booked on 4/5.8.2000 vide R.R.No.219565 162 bags delivered on 10.08.2000 784 bags 926 bags booked on 11.6.2000 vide RR No. 219514 174 bags delivered on 25.6.2000 784 bags booked on 4.8.2000 vide RR No. 217035 178 bags delivered on 11.8.2000 926 bags 784 bags 199 773 bags booked on 4/5.8.2000 vide R.R. No. 219560 206 bags delivered on 10.8.2000 773 bags I have heard learned counsel for the parties in each of the appeals and since the appeals raise common questions of law and facts and relate to the
Decision
same proprietor hence they are being disposed of by a common order. 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 and the copy of the notice served under Section 106 of the Act, no other Patna High Court MA No.481 of 2012 (5) dt.13-11-2013 5 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 all the appeals which have been heard analogous except for the variation in the number of bags which was 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 batch of 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 dated 26.9.2013. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement in submitting that all the issues raised in the present set of appeals Patna High Court MA No.481 of 2012 (5) dt.13-11-2013 6 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) and to uphold the order(s) passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, 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)