Patna High Court - Orders
Jain Enterprises ,Proprietor Chandmal ... vs The Union Of India on 25 April, 2013
Author: Akhilesh Chandra
Bench: Akhilesh Chandra
Patna High Court MA No.181 of 2012 (8) dt.25-04-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.181 of 2012
======================================================
Jain Enterprises ,Proprietor Chandmal Jain Resident of Gulab Bag, P.S.
Gulab Bag, Distt. - Purnia
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
The Union of India, Through the General Manage, North Frontier
Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Mohan Murari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA
ORAL ORDER
8 25-04-2013Heard learned counsel representing the parties.
2. This is an appeal preferred against order dated 17.11.2011 passed by Railway Claim Tribunal, Patna Bench at Patna, as a composite order in good number of cases including OC 00066 of 2000, applicant of which is appellant here.
3. This appeal has been preferred only on the ground that claim was made for the damages at the rate of Rs. 100/- per bag instead payment was made at the rate of Rs. 60/-. Since very limited question is involved in the present appeal, with consent of learned counsels, it is being disposed of at this stage itself.
4. On the basis of document by way of circular of Bihar Government accompanied with Patna High Court MA No.181 of 2012 (8) dt.25-04-2013 Notification of Commercial Tax Department at Muzaffarpur, relating to the rates of Iodised Salt. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to lay emphasis that the appellant is entitled for the compensation at the rate claimed. On the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel represent the sole respondent that the monitory requirement of filing Beejuck was also not fulfilled by the appellant who has admittedly accepted the cheque against the damages at the rate of Rs. 60/- per bag which was sent to him with a clear instruction to return, if at all, it was not acceptable, but instead of refunding the same he filed an application showing his protest and encashed the cheque. Much thereafter filed the claim application before the tribunal and accepted the encashment of the cheque already issued with specific instruction to refund, if not acceptable, hence, his claim application is not at all maintainable.
5. To support the contention reliance is placed on the decision of this court in a case Prakash Chand Sancheti v. Union of India reported in 2006(2) PLJR 371.
6. As per learned counsel for the appellant, decision referred to above is not in consonance with the Division Bench decision of this court in a case Union of India vs. Dwarkadas Patna High Court MA No.181 of 2012 (8) dt.25-04-2013 Radhakrishna reported in 1958 BLJR 504 and subsequent decision of this court in a case Union of India vs. Jethabhai Jesinbhai and Co. reported in AIR 1960 Patna 30. It is undisputed that the Railway accepting the liability to compensate the damage done has issued a cheque with strict condition to return but not to encash, if it is not acceptable to the appellant, but the same has been accepted, though after filing an application intimating protest but it was not a case before this court either in case of 1958 BLJR 504 (supra) or AIR 1960 Patna 30 (supra) and in subsequent decision in case of Prakash Chand Sancheti (Supra) Single Bench of this court, has after considering a Division Bench decision has clearly held in paragraph - 4 which reads as such:
"4. ..............if the offer was not acceptable to the appellant, he would not have encashed the cheques and would have returned it to respondent as per the condition put in the pay orders by which cheques were offered to him. The encashment of cheques by appellant will definitely amount acceptance of offer in full and final satisfaction of his claim according to further condition which was also incorporated in the pay orders."
7. Though, before the Bench, earlier Patna High Court MA No.181 of 2012 (8) dt.25-04-2013 decision of this court Union of India vs. Jethabhai Jesinbhai and Co. (supra) was not placed, but the decision is not applicable in this case, since in that case matter was quite different, no doubt, offer was made for lesser amount but not with any condition to return if it was not acceptable. Whereas in the case in hand, the cheque was sent to the appellant with a strict condition and if in violation of the same claimant has accepted and encashed the amount, his claim application is not at all maintainable.
8. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed on contest. However, there shall be no order as to cost.
Rajeev/- (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)