Gauhati High Court
MFA/252/2019 on 20 February, 2026
1
GAHC010242292019
2026:GAU-AS:2605
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MFA/252/2019
M/s Gajendra Raut,
Lokhra Road, Near Hanuman Mandir,
P.O. Lalganesh, Guwahati, Assam.
.....Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Union of India, Represented By the
General Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon,
Guwahati, Assam.
2. The Union of India,
Represented By the General Manager,
N.C. Railway, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.
......Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Divyansh Rathi,Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. B. Sharma, Advocate
Date of Hearing : 28.10.2025
Date of Judgment : 20.02.2026
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
MFA/252/2019 Page 1
2
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. D. Rathi, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Standing Counsel, N.F. Railways.
[2] This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been filed by the appellant, Shri Gajendra Raut, impugning the judgment and order dated 14.08.2019, passed in Original Application No. I-42/2013(Old) by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, whereby, the claim filed by the present appellant was dismissed.
[3] The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that the appellant had filed an Original Application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,12,806/- along with interest for non-delivery of 34 bags of Bonsum Dry, weighing about 1,990 kgs, which was booked under Parcel Way Bill No. 235260, dated 18.04.2013, from Dimapur to Kanpur Central, under Transit Pass No.2937, the consignee had also obtained a certificate, to that extent, for permission of extraction of Dalchini (Cinnamonum), Bonsum Bark, under Liphanyan working scheme areas, under Wokha Forest Division.
[4] When the aforesaid consignment was not delivered to the appellant, he issued a notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 to the General Manager, N.F. Railway, Guwahati, as well as to the General Manager, N. C. Railway, stating that the consignment of 34 bags of Dry Bonsum weighing about 1990 kgs were not received by MFA/252/2019 Page 2 3 the him at the destination station. However, when no response was received by the appellant to the notice issued by him to the Railway Authority, he approached the Railway Claims Tribunal by filing the aforementioned Original Application claiming compensation of Rs. 1,12,806/- for non-delivery of the consignment booked by the appellant.
[5] The said Original Application was registered as Original Application No. I-42/2013 (Old) and OA (I)/GHY/2013/0033 (New). The present appellant claiming to be the endorsee had also submitted an original copy of affidavit cum letter of authority cum disclaimer certificate dated 29.06.2013 from the original consignee, namely, Shri Jitendra Srivastav along with the Original Application.
[6] The Railways (present appellant) contested the claim of the appellant before the Railways Tribunal by filing a written statement wherein, they challenged the locus standi of the present appellant to file the Original Application. They have also taken the plea of insufficiency of notice under Section 106 as well as defence of Section 93 (d) of the Railways Act, 1989.
[7] On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Railway Claims Tribunal framed following issues: -
1. Whether the case is properly verified, signed and filed?
2. Whether statutory legal notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 has been duly served?
3. Whether the claimant is entitled to the amount as claimed on account of negligence, misconduct on behalf of the Railways?
4. Relief?"
MFA/252/2019 Page 3 4 [8] Ultimately, by judgment dated 14.08.2019, the Original Application filed by the present appellant was dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal. The aforesaid judgment has been impugned in this appeal.
[9] Mr. D. Rathi, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the present appellant is the endorsee of the railway receipt by the original consignee and hence is entitled to file the Original Application before the Claims Tribunal as well as the instant appeal. He submits that on the back side of the Parcel Way Bill issued by the respondent authorities, the original consignee has endorsed the name of the present appellant as endorsee of the consignment. He submits that in the memo of appeal, the word consignee and endorsee has been used interchangeably.
[10] The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the consignment of the dry Bonsum which was booked by Parcel Way Bill No. 235260, dated 18.04.2013, was not received at the destination station on the due time. Thereafter, after waiting for about 3 (three) months, the appellant had issued notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 to the railway authorities, raising the grievance of non-delivery of the aforementioned consignment and requesting the respondents for tracing all the goods booked by the consignee and arranged for delivery of the same to the appellant after giving due notice and intimation to him, however, the Railways Authority did not pay any heed to the notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 issued by the appellant, which was received by them on 02.07.2013.
MFA/252/2019 Page 4 5 [11] The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that after the aforesaid letter, another letter was also issued by the appellant, on 05.09.2013, to the Railways Authorities claiming compensation for non-delivery of the goods booked by him at the destination station. However, no heed was paid to the letter submitted by the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the object of issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 is essentially to enable the railway administration to make an inquiry and investigation as to whether the loss, destruction or deterioration was due to the consignor or due to laches or the willful neglect of railway authorities and its servants. He submits that another object is to prevent stale and possibly dishonest claims, when owing to delay it may be practically impossible to trace the transaction or check the allegations made by the consignor. He submits that the railway authorities were under an obligation, after receipt of the notice issued by the appellant, to conduct an inquiry as to whether there was any lapse on the part of railway administration. He further submits that the railway administration was also under obligation to inform the claimant as to the reason for non-delivery of the consignment to the appellant.
[12] The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though, the notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 was received by railway authorities on 02.07.2013, however, nothing was informed to the appellant regarding fate of his consignment. He submits that it is only in the month of March' 2018, when the railway authorities filed written statement in the Original Application filed by the MFA/252/2019 Page 5 6 appellant, he came to know that the consignment of the appellant has been seized by the Forest Range Officers, Guwahati on the platform No. 1 in front of GR police station and a seizure memo was prepared on 21.04.2013.
[13] The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the railway authorities never informed for five years after the aforesaid seizure regarding the fate of the consignment to the appellant, even during the pendency of the Original Application, before filing of the written statement belatedly after five years in the year' 2018. He submits that though on 21.04.2013 itself, the Forest Range Officer, Guwahati range had intimated the DCM, Guwahati railway station regarding seizer of the consignment booked by the consignee for verification. However, even after receipt of notice and after filing of the Original Application, the appellant was not intimated about the fact that his consignment is in the custody of Forest Range Officer, Guwahati range.
[14] The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Parcel Way Bill bearing No. 235260, itself mentions about the Transit Pass No. 2937, dated 23.01.2013 issued in respect of the aforesaid consignment by the forest department hence, there was no illegality on transporting the aforementioned consignment. He submits that since the consignment was accompanied with valid transit pass and other documents. After verification by the forest department, the Railways ought to have taken custody of the consignment and ought to have forwarded it to the destination station and by not MFA/252/2019 Page 6 7 doing so, it has acted in a negligent manner causing loss to the present appellant.
[15] The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the railways after seizure of the consignment by the forest department, in spite of having a valid transit pass, have not informed the appellant about such seizure for five years, and as such, it has failed to use reasonable foresight and care in carriage of the goods as was required under proviso to Section 93 of the Railways Act, 1989. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that even if the consignment has been seized under the legal process, it was incumbent upon railway authorities to inform the appellant regarding such seizure, as such, he submits that the railway is liable to make good the loss suffered by appellant and these aspects were not taken into consideration by the Railway Claims Tribunal in the impugned judgment. As such, he submits that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant, has cited following rulings:-
i. "Jetmuli Bhojraj Vs. Darjeeling Himalayan Railway Co.Ltd.,"
reported in "AIR 1962 SC 1879;"
ii. "Union of India Vs. M/Indian Oil Corporation Ltd." reported in "Manu / SC / 0235 / 2024."
[16] On the other hand, Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Standing Counsel Railways, appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati bench, has correctly dismissed the claim made by the present appellant and there is no infirmity in MFA/252/2019 Page 7 8 the said judgment to justify any interference by this court in this appeal.
[17] He submits that the present appellant is neither a consigner, nor a consignee, nor an assignee, nor an endorsee. However, he has filed the Original Application, claiming himself to be the consignee of the consignment in question. He submits that the consignee of the consignment pass, one, Jitendra Srivastav. He further submits that the Railway Authority is exempted from its liability to make good the loss suffered by the present appellant as the consignment was seized by the Forest Department under a legal process and the provisions of Section 93 (d) of the Railways Act, 1989 comes to the aid of the Railways Authorities.
[18] The learned Standing Counsel Railways submits that the Railway Claims Tribunal has correctly considered these aspects in the impugned judgment. He further submits that the Railway Authorities have also not failed in taking reasonable care in carriage of the goods. He submits that the Parcel Way Bill, which mentions about the transit pass, was produced before the Forest Department by railway authorities. He further submits that there was no error in the impugned judgment and the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed.
[19] I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. I have also gone through the materials on record, including the records of the Original Application, which was requisitioned from the Railway Claims Tribunal. I have also gone MFA/252/2019 Page 8 9 through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submission.
[20] As regards the locus standi of the present appellant to file the Original Application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati bench as well as the instant appeal is concerned, on perusal of the Parcel Way Bill bearing No. 235260, a copy of which is available on the records of the Original Application, it appears that on the back side of the said bill, there is an endorsement made "please deliver goods to Shri Gajendra Raut." The said endorsement has been signed by Jitendra Srivastav on 29.06.2013, which makes it clear that the present appellant is the endorsee of the aforesaid consignment and therefore, he has the locus standi of approaching the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 to seek compensation due to non-delivery of the aforementioned consignment to him at the destination station.
[21] As regard the notice issued by the appellant under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 is concerned, it appears that the said notice has been received by railway authorities on 02.07.2013 as the seal and signature of the receiver, on behalf of railways, is endorsed on the body of the notice. Mere non mentioning of dairy number therein would not draw an adverse inference regarding service of such notice.
[22] The main contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that since the consignment has been seized by the Forest Department of the Government of Assam for verification at MFA/252/2019 Page 9 10 Guwahati and since such a seizure is a legal process as provided under Section 93(d) of the Railways Act, 1989, the railway authority cannot be made liable to pay any compensation for non delivery of goods as has been held by the Railway Claims Tribunal in the impugned judgment. Thus, the main question to be determined in this appeal is whether the railway authorities are exempted from liability to pay compensation to the appellant in view of the provision contained in Section 93(d) of the Railways Act, 1989.
[23] Let us examine the issue.
[24] For the sake of convenience, Section 93 of the Railways Act, 1989 is quoted herein below:-
"93. General responsibility of a railway administration as carrier of goods. --
Save as otherwise provided in this Act, a railway administration shall be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration in transit, or non-delivery of any consignment, arising from any cause except the following, namely:--
(a)act of God;
(b)act of war;
(c)act of public enemies;
(d)arrest, restraint or seizure under legal process;
(e)orders or restrictions imposed by the Central Government or a State Government or by an officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government or a State Government authorised by it in this behalf;
(f)act or omission or negligence of the consignor or the consignee or the endorsee or the agent or servant of the consignor or the consignee or the endorsee;
MFA/252/2019 Page 10 11
(g)natural deterioration or wastage in bulk or weight due to inherent defect, quality or vice of the goods;
(h)latent defects;
(i)fire, explosion or any unforeseen risk:
Provided that even where such loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery is proved to have arisen from any one or more of the aforesaid causes, the railway administration shall not be relieved of its responsibility for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery unless the railway administration further proves that it has used reasonable foresight and care in the carriage of the goods."
[25] On a bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it appears that the railway administration may not be made responsible for non-delivery of any consignment if such non-delivery is due to, inter alia, a seizure under legal process as provided for in clause (d) of Section 93 of the Railways Act, 1989.However, if we carefully read the proviso to Section 93, it appears that merely because of the fact that such non-delivery is proved to have arisen from any of the reasons mentioned in Section 93, including seizure under legal process, the railway authorities cannot be absolved of its responsibility to pay compensation unless it is able to prove that it has used reasonable foresight and care in carriage of goods.
[26] In the instant case, it is clear from the evidence on record that though the seizure of the consignment was made by the Forest Department Assam, on 21.04.2013, and though the notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 was served on the respondents on 02.07.2013, however, for five years i.e., till the filing MFA/252/2019 Page 11 12 of the written statement by the railway authorities in the aforementioned Original Application on 5th of March 2018, the railways authorities had not intimated anything about seizure of the aforesaid consignment, by the Forest Department, to the present appellant or to the consignee or even to the consignor.
[27] One of the purpose of issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 is also to enable the railway authorities to communicate the reason for non-delivery to the consigner consignee or endorsee so that they may pursue the matter before the appropriate authority and take appropriate step to get relief even in case of a seizure under legal process. By not informing the appellant or the consignee or the consignor, that the consignment has been seized by the Forest Department, for a long period of 5 years, is certainly an act of willful negligence on the part of the railway authorities resulting in the loss suffered by the appellant due to non-delivery of aforementioned consignment at the destination station. Had he been informed within reasonable period of time, he could have pursued his cause before the Forest Department.
[28] In view of the discussions made and reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this court is of considered opinion that the respondent authorities have failed to take reasonable foresight and care in carriage of aforementioned consignment, therefore, they are not exempted from the liability of compensating the appellant for the loss suffered by him for non-delivery of the aforementioned consignment.
MFA/252/2019 Page 12 13 [29] The respondent authorities are, therefore, liable to compensate the appellant for the value of the goods which were not delivered to him at the destination station. The respondents are accordingly directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,12,806/- along with an interest @ of 9% per annum thereon from the date of filing of Original Application, i.e. 01.11.2013 till realization.
[30] This appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
[31] Registry shall immediately send back the records of the Original Application to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, along with a copy of this judgment.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Digitally signed
Munm by Munmun
Boruah
un Date:
2026.02.21
Boruah 18:03:23
+05'30'
MFA/252/2019 Page 13