Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The respondent company is engaged in manufacture of white crystal sugar having factories at Thirumanthankudi Village, Papanasam Taluk, Thanjavur District and also at A. Chittur Village, Vridachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District. In the course of their business, the respondent used to sell free sugar in Northern Indian markets consisting of West Bengal, Assam, Bihar and Delhi by transporting the consignments of sugar in rakes through the services provided by the appellants/Railways. As per the prevailing business practice, the respondent company will sell sugar to Dealers based on sale orders. Upon loading of the consignment through Railways, Railway receipts will be issued by the appellant/ railways showing the consignee as self and as soon as the sale price is paid, it will be endorsed by the respondent in favour of the consignee. The endorsed consignee/buyer takes delivery on payment of the sale price at the respective destination by surrendering the Railway receipts so endorsed in their favour. In such a fashion, during the course of their business, the respondent company got an order placed by a dealer by name M/s. Subham Sugar Agencies, Kolkatta for purchase of 27000 quintal of free sugar. As regards the payment, it was agreed that the endorsed railway receipt will be released on receipt of the entire sale consideration by the respondent. After agreeing and undertaking to fulfil the above payment condition by the dealer, the respondent booked the consignments of sugar on 01.02.2010 from Kumbakonam, Tamil Nadu which comes within the jurisdiction of the first appellant/Railways namely Southern Railway and the consignment was to be delivered at Fatuha, which falls within the jurisdiction of the second appellant/East Central Railway. As agreed between the respondent and the dealer  Subham Sugar Agencies, the railway receipts were drawn as self and retained in the custody of the respondent. The dealer was expected to remit the sale price and to get the railway receipts endorsed in their favour. However, the dealer namely Subham Sugar Agencies, for the reasons best known, did not fulfil the payment obligation and delayed in remitting the amount. According to the respondent, in the meantime, the consignment that had reached the destination point was kept in the Railway yard/godown at Fatuha and was incurring wharfage charges. At this stage, with a view to avoid recurring storage charges, the respondent sent a letter dated 23.04.2010 to the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Trichy, specifically informing that the original railway receipts are in their custody and sought to know the status of the goods. Such a letter was written by the respondent to ensure that the consignment should neither be shifted to any other destination nor should it be sent back to Kumbakonam. In the said letter, inter alia the respondent requested them to intimate the storage charges payable by them. As there was no response, the respondent sent another letter dated 28.04.2010 to the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Trichy with a view to safeguard the interest of the respondent.

2. Whether the Tribunal ought to have directed the respondent to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum as claimed by the respondent?

22. As we have dealt with the factual matrix of the case in detail, it would not be necessary for us to repeat the same any further. However, certain facts which are germane and necessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal and cross objection are essential and they alone are referred.

23. The respondent, during the course of their business, had entrusted 27000 quintal of sugar consignment to be despatched to the consignor M/s. Subham Sugar Agencies, Kolkatta through the appellants/Railways. The consignment of sugar was booked on 01.02.2010 from Kumbakonam, Tamil Nadu to be delivered at Fatuha, Bihar, vide Railway Receipt Nos. 212000375 and 212000376 dated 01.02.2010. According to the respondent, in the Railway Receipts the name of the consignee was indicated as self and the original Railway Receipts were retained by the respondent. According to the respondent, it is the normal business practice that whenever the consignment or goods are despatched through the railways, the original Railway Receipts will be retained by the respondent until the consignee pays the price of the consignment and as soon as the sale price is paid, an endorsement will be made by the respondent authorising the railway to deliver the consignment in favour of the consignee. If for any reason, the consignee failed to pay the price of the consignment, the goods shall be returned back to the consignor and that is the reason why, the railway receipts are drawn with the name of the consignee as self. This is to ensure that the goods are not delivered unless and until the consignor receives the payment for the goods so despatched, before delivery of the goods, to the consignee. This according to the respondent is one of the modes prescribed under The Railways (Manner of Delivery of Consignments and Sale Proceeds in the Absence of Railway Receipt) Rules, 1990. Rule 3 of The Railways (Manner of Delivery of Consignments and Sale Proceeds in the Absence of Railway Receipt) Rules, 1990 prescribes for delivery of the consignments when the Railway Receipt is not forthcoming. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3 clearly states that Where the railway receipt is not forthcoming and the consignment is addressed by the sender to self, delivery shall not be made unless Indemnity Note duly executed in Forms 1A and 1B are produced by the persons claiming delivery of the consignment. In other words, according to the respondent, only if the original railway receipts are not received for a considerable period of time after the consignment reached the destination point, the goods shall be delivered after obtaining an indemnity bond as prescribed in the Rules. Further, Section 65 of The Railways Act, 1989 deals with the Railway Receipt which reads as under:-