The decision of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Lakshmi Bangale Stores, cited 7
supra, takes the view on the provisions of Section 77-B of the Indian Railways Act, which is undisputedly in pari materia with Section 103(2) of the said Act, reproduced above. It has been held that the valuation mentioned in the Forwarding Note does not bind the plaintiff and the question of value of the goods is a matter of evidence and proof and it would be open for the consignor to prove that the actual value of the goods was higher than the value, which he had voluntarily declared. I do not find any reason to take a different view of the matter, but I would like to add that the Forwarding Note and the Railway Receipt are the documents, which are prepared by the Railway Administration. In view of this, the value contained in these two documents cannot be treated as a conclusive evidence of the actual value of the consignment in question. The consignor is at liberty to produce the evidence on record to show that the value contained in these two documents was only for the purpose of insurance put by the concerned officer of the Railway Administration and it would not bind the consignor.
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard the 3
learned counsels appearing for the respective parties.
2. In Claim Application No.40/OAI/RCT/NGP/199 filed under Section 103 of the Railways Act, 1989, the petitioner-Development Corporation of Vidarbha Limited claimed the loss, destruction and damage arising out of non-delivery of five boxes/cartons containing Tassar Silk Sarees from Bhandara Road Railway Station to Hajrat Nizamuddin Railway Station, New Delhi, out of sixteen boxes/cartons booked on 17-12-1997. In another Claim Application No.41/OAI/RCT/NGP/1999, an amount of Rs.2,45,003.56 was claimed
towards the loss of two boxes/cartons containing 120 Tussar Silk Sarees booked on 3-1-1999 from Bhandara Road Railway Station to Hajrat Nizamuddin Railway Station, New Delhi. The loss caused was an admitted fact. The only dispute was regarding valuation of the goods, which were lost.
3. By a common judgment and order dated 22-11-2002 delivered by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, it was held that the value declared at the time of booking of 16 boxes/cartons was of 4
Rs.1,59,840/- in Claim Application No.40/OAI/RCT/NGP/199. Hence, the percentage charges towards the freight were paid to the tune of Rs.2,550/-. The Railway Claims Tribunal, therefore, held that the applicant/appellant was entitled to the compensation of Rs.50,030/-, which included the proportionate percentage charges towards the freight, considering the value of per bale was of Rs.9,990/-, as declared by the applicant/appellant in Claim Application No.40/OAI/RCT/NGP/1999. In Claim Application No.41/OAI/RCT/NGP/1999, the value of two boxes/cartons containing the Handloom Sarees was determined at Rs.19,980/-, and accordingly, it was held that the applicant/appellant was entitled to the compensation of Rs.20,249/-.
4. While determining the value of the goods, the Railway Claims Tribunal has taken the value declared in the Forwarding Note and Railway Receipt in respect of the said goods. According to Shri Samel, the learned counsel for the appellant, the value declared in the Forwarding Note or the Railway Receipt cannot constitute a conclusive evidence of the value of the goods dispatched/lost. According to him, it 5
was only for the purpose of insurance that the value of each bale was specified at Rs.9,990/- as per the instructions given by the concerned officer of the Railway Administration, who prepared the Forwarding Note and the Railway Receipt. He submits that the declaration of the value in these two documents will not bind the appellant- Corporation and it is open for the appellant-Corporation to establish the actual value of the goods lost in transit. He has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Lakshmi Bangle Stores v. The Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1975 AP 235, for his proposition.
5. As against this, Shri Agrawal, the learned counsel for the respondents, has supported the findings recorded by the Railway Claims Tribunal and urged that the appellant-Corporation is bound by the value of the goods, which is declared in the Forwarding Note and the Railway Receipt.
6. Section 103(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 is relevant for determination of the monetary value in respect 6
of any consignment, which is lost, and hence the same is reproduced below :
"103. Extent of monetary liability in respect of any consignment.--
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the consignor declares the value of any consignment at the time of its entrustment to a railway administration for carriage by railway, and pays such percentage charge as may be prescribed on so much of the value of such consignment as is in excess of the liability of the railway administration as calculated or specified, as the case may be, under sub-section (1), the liability of the railway administration for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of such consignment shall not exceed the value so declared." The decision of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Lakshmi Bangale Stores, cited 7
supra, takes the view on the provisions of Section 77-B of the Indian Railways Act, which is undisputedly in pari materia with Section 103(2) of the said Act, reproduced above. It has been held that the valuation mentioned in the Forwarding Note does not bind the plaintiff and the question of value of the goods is a matter of evidence and proof and it would be open for the consignor to prove that the actual value of the goods was higher than the value, which he had voluntarily declared. I do not find any reason to take a different view of the matter, but I would like to add that the Forwarding Note and the Railway Receipt are the documents, which are prepared by the Railway Administration. In view of this, the value contained in these two documents cannot be treated as a conclusive evidence of the actual value of the consignment in question. The consignor is at liberty to produce the evidence on record to show that the value contained in these two documents was only for the purpose of insurance put by the concerned officer of the Railway Administration and it would not bind the consignor.
7. In view of the aforesaid position, the Railway Claims 8
Tribunal has not at all applied its mind to the documents placed on record and the oral evidence led to determine the actual value of the goods, which have lost. The record was called and it seems that several documents placed on record on record, which are required to be considered, to determine the actual value of the goods, which are lost or destroyed during the transit. The judgment and order impugned cannot, therefore, be sustained and the matter is required to be sent back for reconsideration.
8. In view of above, the common judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in Claim Applications No.40/OAI/RCT/NGP/1999 and 41/OAI/RCT/NGP/1999 is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent it rejects the claim of the appellant-Corporation under Section 103(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. The matter is remitted back to the Railway Claims Tribunal to decide the question in the light of the observations made by this Court in this judgment and to pass an appropriate order accordingly, keeping in view the amount, which is already paid by the respondents. 9
9. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
Judge.
Pdl.
supra, takes the view on the provisions of Section 77-B of the Indian Railways Act, which is undisputedly in pari materia with Section 103(2) of the said Act, reproduced above. It has been held that the valuation mentioned in the Forwarding Note does not bind the plaintiff and the question of value of the goods is a matter of evidence and proof and it would be open for the consignor to prove that the actual value of the goods was higher than the value, which he had voluntarily declared. I do not find any reason to take a different view of the matter, but I would like to add that the Forwarding Note and the Railway Receipt are the documents, which are prepared by the Railway Administration. In view of this, the value contained in these two documents cannot be treated as a conclusive evidence of the actual value of the consignment in question. The consignor is at liberty to produce the evidence on record to show that the value contained in these two documents was only for the purpose of insurance put by the concerned officer of the Railway Administration and it would not bind the consignor.
Bombay High Court
Development Corporation Of vs Union Of India on 28 June, 2012
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard the 3
learned counsels appearing for the respective parties.
2. In Claim Application No.40/OAI/RCT/NGP/199 filed under Section 103 of the Railways Act, 1989, the petitioner-Development Corporation of Vidarbha Limited claimed the loss, destruction and damage arising out of non-delivery of five boxes/cartons containing Tassar Silk Sarees from Bhandara Road Railway Station to Hajrat Nizamuddin Railway Station, New Delhi, out of sixteen boxes/cartons booked on 17-12-1997. In another Claim Application No.41/OAI/RCT/NGP/1999, an amount of Rs.2,45,003.56 was claimed
towards the loss of two boxes/cartons containing 120 Tussar Silk Sarees booked on 3-1-1999 from Bhandara Road Railway Station to Hajrat Nizamuddin Railway Station, New Delhi. The loss caused was an admitted fact. The only dispute was regarding valuation of the goods, which were lost.
3. By a common judgment and order dated 22-11-2002 delivered by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, it was held that the value declared at the time of booking of 16 boxes/cartons was of 4
Rs.1,59,840/- in Claim Application No.40/OAI/RCT/NGP/199. Hence, the percentage charges towards the freight were paid to the tune of Rs.2,550/-. The Railway Claims Tribunal, therefore, held that the applicant/appellant was entitled to the compensation of Rs.50,030/-, which included the proportionate percentage charges towards the freight, considering the value of per bale was of Rs.9,990/-, as declared by the applicant/appellant in Claim Application No.40/OAI/RCT/NGP/1999. In Claim Application No.41/OAI/RCT/NGP/1999, the value of two boxes/cartons containing the Handloom Sarees was determined at Rs.19,980/-, and accordingly, it was held that the applicant/appellant was entitled to the compensation of Rs.20,249/-.
4. While determining the value of the goods, the Railway Claims Tribunal has taken the value declared in the Forwarding Note and Railway Receipt in respect of the said goods. According to Shri Samel, the learned counsel for the appellant, the value declared in the Forwarding Note or the Railway Receipt cannot constitute a conclusive evidence of the value of the goods dispatched/lost. According to him, it 5
was only for the purpose of insurance that the value of each bale was specified at Rs.9,990/- as per the instructions given by the concerned officer of the Railway Administration, who prepared the Forwarding Note and the Railway Receipt. He submits that the declaration of the value in these two documents will not bind the appellant- Corporation and it is open for the appellant-Corporation to establish the actual value of the goods lost in transit. He has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Lakshmi Bangle Stores v. The Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1975 AP 235, for his proposition.
5. As against this, Shri Agrawal, the learned counsel for the respondents, has supported the findings recorded by the Railway Claims Tribunal and urged that the appellant-Corporation is bound by the value of the goods, which is declared in the Forwarding Note and the Railway Receipt.
6. Section 103(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 is relevant for determination of the monetary value in respect 6
of any consignment, which is lost, and hence the same is reproduced below :
"103. Extent of monetary liability in respect of any consignment.--
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the consignor declares the value of any consignment at the time of its entrustment to a railway administration for carriage by railway, and pays such percentage charge as may be prescribed on so much of the value of such consignment as is in excess of the liability of the railway administration as calculated or specified, as the case may be, under sub-section (1), the liability of the railway administration for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of such consignment shall not exceed the value so declared." The decision of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Lakshmi Bangale Stores, cited 7
supra, takes the view on the provisions of Section 77-B of the Indian Railways Act, which is undisputedly in pari materia with Section 103(2) of the said Act, reproduced above. It has been held that the valuation mentioned in the Forwarding Note does not bind the plaintiff and the question of value of the goods is a matter of evidence and proof and it would be open for the consignor to prove that the actual value of the goods was higher than the value, which he had voluntarily declared. I do not find any reason to take a different view of the matter, but I would like to add that the Forwarding Note and the Railway Receipt are the documents, which are prepared by the Railway Administration. In view of this, the value contained in these two documents cannot be treated as a conclusive evidence of the actual value of the consignment in question. The consignor is at liberty to produce the evidence on record to show that the value contained in these two documents was only for the purpose of insurance put by the concerned officer of the Railway Administration and it would not bind the consignor.
7. In view of the aforesaid position, the Railway Claims 8
Tribunal has not at all applied its mind to the documents placed on record and the oral evidence led to determine the actual value of the goods, which have lost. The record was called and it seems that several documents placed on record on record, which are required to be considered, to determine the actual value of the goods, which are lost or destroyed during the transit. The judgment and order impugned cannot, therefore, be sustained and the matter is required to be sent back for reconsideration.
8. In view of above, the common judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in Claim Applications No.40/OAI/RCT/NGP/1999 and 41/OAI/RCT/NGP/1999 is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent it rejects the claim of the appellant-Corporation under Section 103(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. The matter is remitted back to the Railway Claims Tribunal to decide the question in the light of the observations made by this Court in this judgment and to pass an appropriate order accordingly, keeping in view the amount, which is already paid by the respondents. 9
9. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
Judge.
Pdl.
No comments:
Post a Comment