JUDGMENT
V. Eswaraiah, J.
1. The appellant herein is the Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. The respondent is a Steel Authority of India Limited (for short ‘the SAIL’).
2. The application filed by the respondent in O.A.No.234 of 1991, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, for payment of compensation of Rs.94,775/- from the Railway Authorities towards the cost of the short delivery of 22.300 Metric Tons of Pig Iron Ingots priced at the rate of Rs.4,250/- per ton, was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order, this CMA is filed.
3. It is the case of the respondent before the Tribunal that on 21/22.09.1990 in invoice No.W-660 the SAIL loaded the consignment of 58.700 Mts. of pig iron ingots from the Bhilai Steel Plant, Bokaro to Moula Ali, Hyderabad, vide railway receipt No.C-643947. It is stated that the value of the goods to be transported is Rs.2,49,475/-, which is calculated at the rate of Rs.4,250/- per Metric ton. But on the delivery, in wagon No.SR-28251 of the Railways, the short delivery of 22.300 metric tons was disclosed and thus claimed the compensation for the value of the shortage amounting to Rs.94,775/- along with interest. It is the further case of the claimant that on 25.10.1990, when the consignment arrived at Moula Ali Station, they have suspected a heavy shortage in the consignment due to pilferage and requested the railways for re-weighment. But, the railways refused the said request. Subsequently, by a letter dated 29.10.1990 the applicant requested the Railway authorities to depute their representative at Moula Ali to witness the survey and re-weighment to be conducted by an independent surveyor, specifying the time and date of survey. But, the Railway authorities have refused to witness on the ground that the wagon was delivered to them correctly and therefore, there cannot be any re- weighment and the claim towards the shortage cannot be admitted and accordingly, repudiated his request vide Ex.A-8 dated 22.01.1991. Thereupon, the applicant appointed an independent Surveyor and reweighed the consignment. On re- weighment, a shortage of 22.300 Mts. was disclosed in the said consignment.
4. It is the case of the Railways that the said pig iron ingots were loaded in wagon No.SR 28251 by the staff engaged by the SAIL, and loading and unloading was done by the applicant with an endorsement “said to contain” and the same is evident from the railway receipt issued. The railway staff has not supervised the actual quantity loaded into the wagon at the forwarding station. It is a crane consignment supervised by the senders at the time of loading. Whatever consignment was loaded in the said wagon shall be carried up to the destination with due care and caution and in the same condition as loaded by senders at forwarding end and offer the same for delivery to the consignees. If any short delivery was found in the consignment at the time of delivery, it is due to the short loading by the senders.
5. The Surveyor was examined as Applicant Witness No.1. He stated that he saw the wagon containing the consignment for the first time on 01.11.1990 i.e., just before the re-weighment and he had not seen the consignment earlier, nor did he see in what condition the consignment arrived and was placed at SAIL siding. The gist of the condition of the consignment made him believe that pilferage had taken place somewhere.
6. The Junior Executive (Marketing) of SAIL was examined as A.W.2. He also stated that he had no knowledge about the circumstances and conditions of the loading of the subject consignment at the booking end at Bokaro. He saw the consignment for the first time on arrival of the consignment at SAIL siding on 25.10.1990. He noticed depressions in the level of loading of the material inside the wagon. At one point, prior to removal of large quantity of material, the wagon floor was visible. This made him to conclude that the material has been tampered and some pilferage had taken place before the wagon was placed at their siding.
7. Admittedly, the loading and delivery places are the private sidings of the SAIL. That apart, as per Section 94 of the Railways Act, 1989, (for short ‘the Act’) the applicant is not entitled for any compensation for whatever cause. Section 94 of the Act reads as follows Section 94: Goods to be loaded or delivered at a siding not belonging to a railway administration.–
(1) Where goods are required to be loaded at a siding not belonging to a railway administration for carriage by railway, the railway administration shall not be responsible for any loss, destruction, damage or deterioration of such goods from whatever cause arising until the wagon containing the goods has been placed at the specified point of interchange of wagons between the siding and the railway administration and a railway servant authorized in this behalf has been informed in writing accordingly by the owner of the siding.
(2) Where any consignment is required to be delivered by a railway administration at a siding not belonging to a railway administration, the railway administration shall not be responsible for any loss, destruction, damage or deterioration or non-delivery of such consignment from whatever cause arising after the wagon containing the consignment has placed at the specified point of interchange of wagon between the railway and the siding and the owner of the siding has been informed in writing accordingly by a railway servant authorized in this behalf.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the SAIL submits that under Section 78 of the Act, before delivery of the consignment the railway administration has right to re-weigh the consignment. Under Section 79 of the Act, the railway administration may, on the request made by the consignee or endorsee, allow weighment of the consignment subject to such conditions and on payment of such charges as may be prescribed and the demurrage charges if any.
9. But, in the instant case, the railway administration has refused for re- weighment of the consignment.
10. The learned counsel for the Railways submits that if the goods are booked at the owners risk, there is no obligation on the part of the railways to undertake any re-weighment. Under Section 78 of the Act, the Railways are empowered to re-weigh and re-classify the consignment for the purpose of calculating the freight and other charges and to rectify the mistakes.
11. Section 79 of the Act has no application in respect of the goods required to be loaded at a siding not belonging to the railway administration and also in respect of consignment required to be delivered by the railway authorities at a siding not belonging to the railway administration. Therefore, I am of the view that under Section 94 of the Railways Act, the SAIL is not entitled for any compensation for the alleged short delivery. However, Ex.R-1 discloses that the Railway authorities cancelled the railway receipt on delivery of the concerned goods. The consignment was received without any protest, and thereafter, they have made an attempt to throw the burden on the railways making them responsible for the short delivery of the said consignment.
12. In view of the aforesaid specific provision contained in Section 94 (1) and (2) of the Act, I am of the opinion that the SAIL is not entitled for any compensation for the damages or for the short delivery of the consigned material or for whatever reasons. Thus, the impugned order of the railway tribunal is illegal and contrary to the specific provisions contained in Section 94 of the Act.
13. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the order in O.A.No.234 of 1991 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, dated 27.11.1998 is set aside. No order as to costs.