JUDGMENT
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The decision in the instant appeal turns on only one document, Ex.R-1, i.e. the forwarding note.
3. Vide impugned order dated 31.1.1996 the Railway Claim Tribunal has dismissed the claim application. Pertaining to Ex.R-1 the findings of the Tribunal are as under:
In the light of rival contentions of the parties, the important question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the consignment booked for carriage under the RR, in question, consisted of gram and jawar mixed as contended by the respondent or it consisted only of gram as contended by the applicant. The respondent has produced the original Forwarding Note which is marked as Ex.R-1. The various columns in the first page of the Forwarding Note were filled by the sender or his agent as required by Section 58 of the Indian Railways Act and Rule 22(1) of the Goods Tariff Rules on 1.5.88 and he has put his signature at the bottom of the first page of the forwarding note. Against the column ‘Description and private marks’, it is specifically mentioned gram and jawar. The said entry made in Ex.R1 and signed by the sender’s agent supports the contention of the respondent that what was booked for carriage under RR, in question, was gram and jawar mixed. The contention on behalf of the applicant is that Forwarding Note was tampered and the word jawar in the first page of Ex.R-1 was subsequently inserted by some interested parties and that neither the sender nor his agent entered the word jawar Along with gram in the column regarding “description of consignment and private marks.” We are unable to accept the above contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant. The applicant has not examined either the sender or the agent of the sender who prepared Ex.R-1 and signed the same to say that he never wrote the word jawar Along with gram in the column ‘description and private marks.’ There is absolutely no necessity for the respondent to add or to tamper the public document Ex.R-1. In these circumstances, the entry in the first page of Ex.R1 that what was booked for carriage under Ex.R1 was gram and jawar must be taken as correct.
4. To appreciate the contention suffice would it be to note that the appellant had admittedly entrusted 117 bags for carriage from Pachor Road Station to New Delhi Railway Station vide RR dated 1.5.1988. The goods described in the RR, Ex.A-2, were gram (channa).
5. The undisputed position is that the consignment offered to the appellant was predominantly jawar with little content of gram. It would be interesting to note that the gram contain in the consignment which was offered was about 2%.
6. The appellant refused to take delivery of the goods offered alleging that what was offered was not the goods of the appellant and hence proceeded to lodge a claim for the reason the railway authorities insisted that what was offered was what was entrusted to it.
7. It would also be relevant to note at this stage that the goods which were booked for delivery at 1.5.1988 were actually offered for delivery on 31.5.1988. It is evident that the transportation of the goods was inordinately delayed. Possibility of tampering is thus in the realm of reality.
8. Be that as it may, reverting back to Ex.R-1, according to the appellant the description of the goods was as per the forwarding note. According to the appellant the forwarding note, Ex.R-1, clearly evidenced that the goods entrusted were gram and somebody had later on interpolated the word jawar on the forwarding note.
9. It is not in dispute that the original forwarding note was handed over to the railway authorities when goods were entrusted for carriage and the document was proved before the Tribunal on being produced by the railway authorities.
10. The Tribunal has noted that in the forwarding note the word ‘jawar’ is also written in the column when goods were described and that above the word ‘jawar’ the word ‘gram’ is written. The Tribunal had opined that there was no reason for the railway officials to tamper with the document Ex.R-1. The Tribunal has opined that the document probablizes that the word ‘jawar’ was written by the consignor.
11. The process of argumentative reasoning or the process of an analytical or deductive reasoning, in my opinion, should be resorted to where the situation so arise. A fact is best perceived by the senses. Thus, a visual look at a document reveals much to the court. I have perused Ex.R-1. The same has been viewed in the court by the counsel for the railways. A perusal of Ex.R-1 shows that the word ‘jawar’ written in Devnagari script is in a completely different handwriting viz-a-viz the handwriting in which the remaining columns of the forwarding note have been filled. Further, the difference in the colour of the ink also shows that the entire forwarding note save and except the word jawar has been filled up by one pen and the word jawar has been written by use of another pen. It is thus obvious that somebody later on interpolated the forwarding note.
12. If any corroboration was to be sought, it could easily be sought with reference to the RR, Ex.A-2. As noted above, the RR noted the description of the goods only as gram.
13. It is not in dispute that entries are recorded in the RR pertaining to description of the goods based on the entries recorded in the forwarding note. What more corroborative fact can exist other than the recording in the RR that the goods consigned were gram.
14. It is an obvious case where the Tribunal has ignored a material circumstance and has probablized fact ignoring the said material circumstance.
15. It is settled law that pertaining to appreciation of facts, if the court of original jurisdiction eschews material evidence or ignores a material circumstance, the Appellate Court would be fully justified in taking corrective action.
16. There is no dispute between the parties to the price/value of the goods.
17. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
18. Impugned order dated 31.1.1996 is quashed. Claim petition filed by the appellant is allowed in sum of Rs. 70,200/- with costs.
19. The appellant is also held entitled to interest on the sum claimed in the claim petition i.e. Rs. 70,200/-, being the value of the gram.
20. The appellant is also held entitled to pre-suit interest but not @18% claimed in the claim petition. Pre-suit interest is awarded @ 9% per annum. This comes to Rs. 2637.50.
21. Appellant is also entitled to pendente lite and future interest @ 9% per annum on the sum of Rs. 70,200/- with effect from 7.10.1988 when suit was filed till date of payment.
22. Before concluding I may record that initially a suit was filed by the appellant. With the constitution of the Railway Claim Tribunal, the same was assigned to the Tribunal for adjudication.
23. Cost in the appeal are however not being imposed.
24. TCR may be returned forthwith.