Gauhati High Court
MFA/125/2011 on 15 September, 2025
Page 1 of 17
GAHC010215572011
2025:GAU-AS:12597
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MFA/125/2011
1. Union of India Represented by The
General Manager, N.F. Railway,
Maligaon, Guwahai-11, Assam.
.....Appellant
-Versus-
1. M/s Union Flour Mills Industries Ltd. Meherpur,
Silchar, Assam
......Respondent
For Appellant : Mrs. U. Chakraborty, Special Senior Railway
Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R Paul, Advocate
Date of Judgment 15.09.2025
MFA 125 of 2011 Page 1
Page 2 of 17
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Ms. U. Chakraborty, the learned Senior Special Railway Advocate for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R Paul, the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, has been filed by the appellant, Union of India, represented by NF Railway, impugning the judgment and order dated 13.09.2011, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, in Application No. OA-1340 of 2007(old), whereby a compensation amount of Rs. 2,03,459/- only along with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the order, till realization was directed to be paid to the respondent.
3. It is pertinent to mention herein that by order dated 27.04.2012, passed in MC No. 1138/2012, in connection with the present appeal, the impugned judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal was stayed till next returnable date. The said order of stay has been extended on every fixed date and the same is in force till date.
4. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant Appeal, in brief, is that M/s Union Flour Mills Industries Ltd. Meherpur, Silchar, Assam had by filing an application, before the Railway Claims Tribunal, MFA 125 of 2011 Page 2 Page 3 of 17 inter-alia, stated that a consignment of 48,782 bags of wheat was booked on 10.10.2006, from Mandi, Haryana (MDY) to Silchar (SCL) under Invoice No. 1/RR No. 239777. It was contended, before the Railway Claims Tribunal that at the destination point, i.e., Silchar, 22 bags and 19,410 kgs of wheat were delivered in short by the Railways to the present respondent. It was also contended that, thereafter, notice under Section 106 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, was also issued by the respondent to the Railways claiming compensation for the loss and short delivery of wheat.
5. The present appellant contested the claim of the respondent before the Railway Claims Tribunal by filing a written statement. It was contended in the written statement that the loading of the consignment was not supervised by the Railway Authorities. It was also contended that the consignment arrived at the transshipment point at Lumding with seal rivet intact (SRI) condition, without any interference enroute.
6. It was also contended that the defective bags were due to non-
compliance of prescribed packing conditions by the sender at the forwarding station. In the written statement, the respondent was put to furnish strict proof of actual numbers of bags of wheat, which were loaded at the forwarding station for carriage. It was also contended that the shortage certificate issued by the Railways during delivery of the goods at the destination was strictly without any prejudice and, therefore, it may not be used by the respondent MFA 125 of 2011 Page 3 Page 4 of 17 as evidence against Railways. It was further contended that the present respondent failed to furnish Beejuck, letter of authority and other relevant documents before the Railway Authorities.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the Railway Claims Tribunal had formulated the following issues:
i. Whether the notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989, was served properly by the applicant to the respondent in time?
ii. Whether the applicant holds title for the claim? iii. Whether the respondent proves that the entire consignment was delivered at destination. iv. Whether the applicant proves that they did not receive the entire consignment, at destination?
v. What relief? what order?
8. In support of its contention, the applicant (present respondent) exhibited seven documents. The main amongst them were Exhibit-
A2, i.e., copy of the railway receipt, Exhibit-A3 i.e., copy of the list of one block rake, Exhibit-A4 i.e., Railway Acknowledgement Letter, Exhibit-A6 i.e., copy of Beejuck dated 11.10.2006, issued by Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited.
9. On the other hand, the respondent, (present appellant) exhibited the following documents:
i. Exhibit-A1 i.e., copy of the Railway Receipt MFA 125 of 2011 Page 4 Page 5 of 17 ii. Exhibit-A2 i.e., copy of the record of joint survey of open delivery for shortage and damage iii. Exhibit-A3 i.e., copy of delivery certificate iv. Exhibit-A4 i.e., copies of shipment particulars of Lumding transshipment .
10. However, the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati by the order which has been impugned in this appeal had allowed the claim application of the respondent and directed the railways to pay an amount of Rs. 2,03 ,459/- along with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of order to the respondent.
11. In the Memo of Appeal, the appellant has taken mainly the following grounds for assailing the impugned judgment:
i. That the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati passed the impugned judgment without application of mind in as much as it awarded the compensation merely by relying on Exhibit-R2, i.e., the record of Joint Survey of Open Delivery for Shortage and Damage, Exhibit-R3, copy of Delivery Certificate and Exhibit-A6 copy of Beejuck dated 11.10.2006 issued by Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation.
ii. The learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati failed to take into consideration that the railway receipt contained the remark "said to contain 48782 bags wheat as per F note". It is also contended that mere failure on the part of the appellant MFA 125 of 2011 Page 5 Page 6 of 17 to produce the original forwarding note, noting tally, transit report, seal and card labels may not be sufficient to reach the conclusion the consignment was not received in SRI condition.
12. The learned Senior Special Railway Advocate submits that the respondent has failed to prove by adducing cogent evidence that as to what was the actual number of bags of wheat which was loaded in the wagons at forwarding station. It is also submitted that the consignment was found at the transshipment point in the Seal Rivet Intact (SRI) conditions without any interference enroute and the torn and bruised bags were due to non-compliance of the prescribed packaging conditions and that the defective bags loaded by the sender at the forwarding station.
13. She further submits that the consignment was booked and loaded under the remark "said to contain" in the railway receipt without supervision of any railway staff at the forwarding station. Moreover, it was loaded at a private siding without any supervision from the Railway staff and therefore, the railway is not liable for payment of any compensation. In support of her submission, the learned Senior Special Railway Advocate has cited the ruling of this Court in the case of "Srinivas Vasudev Vs. Union of India and others"
reported in 2002 1 GLT 605.
14. The learned Senior Special Railway Advocate has also submitted that the respondent has failed to prove the actual quantity of wheat loaded at the forwarding station by proving the lorry challan with MFA 125 of 2011 Page 6 Page 7 of 17 the numbers of bags of wheats were mentioned or the sale tax payment document, books of account or Beejuck/sale invoices. The learned Senior Special Railway Advocate has also submitted that the railway is exempted from liability to pay compensation to the respondent under clause (g) and clause (h) of Section 93 of the Railways Act, 1989 and as such the petitioner has failed to prove that there was any criminal interference enroute from the forwarding point to the destination point.
15. The Senior Special Counsel for Railway has also submitted that under Section 110 of the Railways Act, the burden of proving the actual monetary loss sustained to a person claiming compensation is on the said person and in the instant case, the respondent has failed to relieve that burden.
16. She further submits that when the consignment was not found to be loaded at "Railway Risk" (RR) in the railway receipt, the burden of showing the damage caused due to any negligence on the part of Railway is on the claimant.
17. She also submits that the shortage certificate issued by the Railway is in itself not a proof of the fact that what was the actual quantum of the goods which were booked and loaded at the starting point. She submits that mention in the said certificate "without prejudice"
itself means that mere issuance of shortage certificate cannot be construed as an admission of negligence or misconduct by the MFA 125 of 2011 Page 7 Page 8 of 17 Railways. It only gives a certificate as to the quantum of the goods delivered at the destination point.
18. The learned Senior Special counsel for the Railways (the appellant) has also submitted that as per Section 65 (2) of the Railways Act, 1989 in a case where the weight or number of packages or bags pertaining to a consignment is not checked by an authorized railway servant and a statement the effect is recorded in the relevant railway receipt by the authorized railway servant, the burden of proving the weight or number of packages or bags declared by the consigner shall lie on the consigner and in the instant case, the respondent has failed to relieve that burden.
19. She submits that in view of the provisions contained in Section 65 (2)/93/97/108/110 of the Railways Act, 1989 Railway, clause 1836 of the IRCM-Vol. 2, the Railways (the present appellant) is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondent and that the impugned judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
20. In support of her submission, the learned Senior Special counsel for Railways has cited the following rulings.
i. "Hari Sao and Another Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 370 SC 843;
ii. Union of India Vs. M/s PP Enterprise(MFA 272/2010); iii. Union of India Vs. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited (MFA 92/2016);
MFA 125 of 2011 Page 8 Page 9 of 17 iv. Union of India Vs. M/s Northeast Iodized Salt Private Limited (MFA No. 18/2011); v. Union of India Vs. Aluminum Industries Limited reported in AIR 1987 Orissa 149; vi. Union of India Vs. VD Chunjunawala reported in AIR 1988 Orissa 260; vii. Union of India Vs. Industrial Development Corporation for ISR Limited reported in AIR 1995 Orissa 298; viii. Union of India Vs. M/s Manas Salt Iodization Industries Private Limited (MFA No.24/2015).
21. On the other hand, Mr. R. Paul, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Railways Claims Tribunal, Guwahati has rightly assessed the compensation amount and has correctly directed the Railways (the present appellant), to compensate the respondent for the loss suffered by it.
22. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the consignment of wheat was booked under railway risk rate and the appellant had charged extra freight for such risk and in such case, Railways are bound to take extra care and precaution in carrying the consignment to its destination.
23. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that as regards the burden of the respondent to prove the quantity of wheat which was loaded at Mandi Haryana (MBY), the respondent has submitted a copy of Beejuck (bill) issued by Haryana State MFA 125 of 2011 Page 9 Page 10 of 17 Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, which shows that 48,782 bags of wheat was purchased by the respondents for transportation to Silchar. He submits that the appellant has not disputed the said Beejuck before the Railway Claims Tribunal or even in this appeal.
24. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that since during transportation of the consignment from Mandi, Haryana to Silchar, Assam, there was a change of gauge from broad gauge to meter gauge at Lumding, as such the goods were transshipped under the supervision of Railway and no representative of respondent was present at the time of such transshipment. It was only at the destination that the respondent found that the goods are not in good condition and were in shortage, as such it demanded an open delivery and the joint survey of open delivery shows that out of 48760 wheat bags 585 bags were torn and cut and 22 bags out of total 48,782 bags were found to be short. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the railways failed to produce the forwarding note or other relevant documents/reports to prove as to how the consignment was dealt with during the transit and whether the wagon were found in Seal Rivet Intact (SRI) conditions.
25. The learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that since at Lumding the goods were transshipped to another train, the Group of C Delivered had an intact SRI condition, which was in the MFA 125 of 2011 Page 10 Page 11 of 17 custody of Railways was not produced before the Tribunal for Examination. Hence, an adverse presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act has to be taken against the Railways that the wagon carrying the consignment were not in SRI condition.
26. The learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that as per Rule 1714 of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual, Volume 2, the seal and labels should be carefully preserved for six months and if during this six months any notice under Section 106 of Railways Act is issued alleging shortage or any dispute or claim in such circumstances the seals and label should be submitted with the missing and damaged goods record, which has not been done in this case. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondent has cited following rulings:
i. Union of India Vs. M/s Ajmera Brothers (MFA No. 297/2010) ii. Union of India Vs. M/s Ganapati Enterprise (MFA No.18/2009).
iii. Union of India Vs. M/s Sunrise Traders (MFA No. 4/2010) iv. Union of India Vs. M/s Savitri Salt Suppliers (MFA No. 16/2011).
27. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record including the records of the Claim Application No. OA-1340 of 2007(old)/Claim Application No. OA-1/GHY-2007/1340 which were MFA 125 of 2011 Page 11 Page 12 of 17 requisitioned from the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati. I have also gone through the ruling cited by the learned counsel for both sides very carefully.
28. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contested the finding of the Railway Claims Tribunal upon Issue Nos. 3 and 4 in the proceedings of Claim Application No. OA-1340 of 2007 as to whether the applicant (present respondent) or the respondent (present appellant) could prove that the entire consignment which was loaded at forwarding station was delivered or not, at the destination station.
29. On perusal of the records, it appears that the Railway Receipt issued to the respondent at the time of booking of the consignment has been marked by the respondent as Exhibit-A2 and same has also been marked by the appellant as Exhibit-R1. On perusal of the railway receipt, it appears that it has been stated therein that the consignment was booked under the remark "said to contain", it has also been stated that the consignment was directly loaded from the trucks to the wagons and the process was not supervised by railway staff.
30. One of the main contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the burden of proving the weight of the wheat which was loaded at the forwarding station i.e, at Mandi, Haryana is on the respondent under Section 65 of the Railways Act, 1989 which provides as follows:
MFA 125 of 2011 Page 12 Page 13 of 17 "65. Railway receipt.--
(1) A railway administration shall,--
(a)in a case where the goods are to be loaded by a person entrusting such goods, on the completion of such loading; or
(b)in any other case, on the acceptance of the goods by it, issue a railway receipt in such form as may be specified by the Central Government.
(2) A railway receipt shall be prima facie evidence of the weight and the number of packages stated therein:
Provided that in the case of a consignment in wagon-load or train-load and the weight or the number of packages is not checked by a railway servant authorised in this behalf, and a statement to that effect is recorded in such railway receipt by him, the burden of proving the weight or, as the case may be, the number of packages stated therein, shall lie on the consignor, the consignee or the endorsee."
31. On perusal of the above provision, it appears that a railway receipt is considered as prima facie evidence of weight and number of packages stated therein. However, if at the time of loading the consignment in the wagon, the weight or number of packages were not checked by railway official authorised on this behalf and a statement to that effect is recorded in such railway receipt, the MFA 125 of 2011 Page 13 Page 14 of 17 burden of proving the weight or as the case may be the number of packages stated therein lies on the consignor i.e., in this case it lies on the respondent. However, it appears that no evidence was adduced by any of the parties in this case. They have merely submitted photocopies of documents along with their pleadings. The pleadings were also not supported by any affidavit, same were only supported by verifications.
32. The Section 18 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act , 1987 lays down the procedure to be adopted by the Railway Claims Tribunal while deciding a Claims Petition. It lays down that the Claims Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure Code 1908, but it shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other provision of the said Act or any rules, the Claims Tribunal shall have the power to regulate its own procedure.
33. It appears that under Section 18 (3)(a) of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act , 1987, the Railways Claims Tribunal shall have the power of summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath. Whereas, under Section 18 (3) (c), it also has the power of receiving evidence on affidavits. However, in the instant case, while deciding the Claim Petition filed by the respondent, nor any witness was examined neither any evidence on affidavit has been filed by any of the parties.
MFA 125 of 2011 Page 14 Page 15 of 17
34. We have seen from the discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs that in case the number of bags loaded in railways wagon is not checked by a railway servant authorized in this behalf and a statement to that effect is recorded in the Railway Receipt, the burden of proving the number of packages stated therein is on the consigner i.e. respondent. The burden of proving as required under Section 65 (2) of the Railways Act 1985 may be relieved only by adducing evidence, that may be done either by examining witnesses on oath or by giving evidence on affidavit.
35. However, in the instant case, it appears that no such opportunity of adducing evidence was given by the Railway Claims Tribunal to either of the parties. It appears that after framing of the issues, the hearing was fixed and it is at the time of hearing only, the respondent had produced a photocopy of the Beejuck dated 11.10.2006 issued to the respondent by the Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited.
36. Though, it has been marked as Exhibit A-6, however, it appears that no witness has exhibited the same neither the same has been submitted before the Tribunal on affidavit. The veracity of the photocopy of the Beejuck was not tested by the Railways Claims Tribunal. However, it was relied upon to arrive at the decision which has been impugned in this Appeal. The principles of natural justice requires that the adverse party may be given an opportunity to counter the veracity of documents relied upon by the applicant. It MFA 125 of 2011 Page 15 Page 16 of 17 may be done only if the opportunity of cross-examination is afforded to the adverse party.
37. We have seen that though, the Section 18 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 enables the Railway Claims Tribunal to regulate its own procedure, however, it shall have to be guided by the principles of natural justice. Unless a document, which is sought to be relied upon by one of the parties is exhibited in evidence as documentary evidence and the same is subjected to cross- examination, same cannot be the basis of coming to a finding while deciding the claim application. More so, in view of the proviso to Section 65 (2) of the Railways Act 1985, by merely submitting the photocopy of the Beejuck without examining the veracity of the said document, the respondent cannot be regarded as having discharged the burden cast upon it by the proviso to Section 65(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
38. It also appears that the Railways Claims Tribunal had also not fixed any date for examination or adducing of evidence by the parties and thereby, it has violated the principles of natural justice which it ought to have followed as per the provisions of Section 18 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
39. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that the interest of justice will be served if this matter is remanded back to the Railway Claims Guwahati which will then MFA 125 of 2011 Page 16 Page 17 of 17 afford an opportunity to the parties to produce evidence in support of their respective stand taken in their respective pleadings.
40. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati with a direction to decide the case afresh after affording opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence in support of their case keeping in mind the provisions contained in Section 65 of the Railways Act, 1989 as well as in view of the observations made in this judgment herein above, as expeditiously as possible.
41. With the above observations and directions this instant appeal is disposed of002E
42. Send back the records of the Application No. OA-1340 of 2007 to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati along with the copy of this judgment.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
MFA 125 of 2011 Page 17