JUDGMENT
P.C. Jain, J.
1. This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order dated 19-2-1991 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench Camp at Jodhpur [for short ‘the Tribunal’] whereby the learned Tribunal has declined to allow the interest claimed by the appellant amounting to Rs. 15867/- @ Rs. 13.50% from 19-3-1988 to 24-7-1989 and further from the date of preferring claim petition till the payment is made, on the ground that if amounts to damages over damages not warranted by clause (d) of Section 78 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 [for short ‘the Act’].
2. The brief facts relating to this appeal are that a consignment of 180 bags of sugar was despatched to the applicant by M/s. Hindustan Sugar Mills, Golagokarannath under Railway Receipt No. 757965 dated 7-3-1988 under the railway risk to be delivered to the appellant at Rani. The railway receipt was consigned to self and it was sent through Bank to the appellant who retired it for valuable consideration under Hundi No. 979 of 8-3-1988 for Rs. 86929.20 p. However, the above consignment did not reach to its destination. The plaintiff-appellant wrote to the Railway Authorities and ultimately served a notice under Section 80, C.P.C. but the latter did not care to reply the same.
3. The plaintiff-appellant, therefore, filed a suit before the learned Additional District Judge, Bali on 24-7-1989. The defendants-respondents did not dispute the claim of the appellant and sent a cheque for Rs. 86929/- but the plaintiff-appellant could not encash the same because the description of the plaintiff was wrongly mentioned in the cheque. The plaintiff-appellant, therefore, returned
the cheque with a letter to the defendant-respondents specifying the reasons for its non-encashment. Thereafter, the defendant-respondents neither sent the fresh cheque with correct address nor sent any reply.
4. However, considering the material on record, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim of the plaintiff-appellant for a sum of Rs. 86929/- plus other expenses incurred by the appellant but it declined to allow the interest on the ground that the above claim amounted to damages over damages which cannot be allowed as per the provisions of Section 78(d) of the Act.
5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case.
6. From the narration of the above facts, it is crystal clear that it was not in fact a case of damages but it was a case of non-delivery of the consignment and the plaintiff-appellant claimed the real value of the consignment. The defendants-respondents di’d not dispute the claim and sent the cheque. The loss of interest occurred on account of the non-encashment of me cheque Because the description of the plaintiff-appellant was wrongly mentioned in the cheque. Hence, in my opinion, the plaintiff-appellant was deprived of the receipt of the claim which he would have got if the cheque would have been encashed. The loss on account of the non-receipt of the cheque amount was the direct result of the wrong issue of the cheque. The plaintiff-appellant was, therefore, legally entitled to damages by way of interest.
7. For the above reasons, I allow this appeal in part and the impugned Award dated 19-2-1991 passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to this extent that the plaintiff-appellants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 13.50% p.a. from 19-3-1988 to 24-7-1989 and further from the date of preferring the claim petition till the payment of the claim amount is made.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
the parties are left to bear their costs of this appeal.
Let the record of the court below be sent forthwith.