Railways' Negligence in Handling Fertilizer Bags Results in Rs. 9.93 Lakh Compensation to Gujarat State Fertilizer and Chemical Limited
In a significant judgment, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, upheld the decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal, awarding Rs. 9.93 lakh in compensation to Gujarat State Fertilizer and Chemical Limited. The High Court, presided over by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India, representing the Railway Authorities, challenging the Tribunal's ruling that found the Railways negligent in handling the consignment.
The case involved the transportation of 51,756 HDPE bags of DAP fertilizers from Moti Khavdi to Gangapur City, entrusted to the Railway Authorities under six Railway Receipts dated September 15-16, 1999. The Tribunal had earlier ruled in favor of the respondent, holding the Railways liable for the damage caused to the bags due to rainfall, while they were under the custody of the Railways at the destination station.
Despite the Railway Authorities' claims that the consignment was delivered without any remarks and the damage occurred after the claimant had unloaded the bags, the High Court found no merit in their arguments. Justice Dhand emphasized the Railways' responsibility under Sections 93 and 99 of the Railways Act, 1989, which mandate the Railway Administration to ensure the safety and protection of goods in transit and until delivery. The judgment underscored the Railways' failure to provide adequate protective measures, such as tarpaulin covers, despite the absence of a covered shed at Gangapur City station.
The Court also dismissed the Railway Authorities' contention that the claimant had unloaded the bags without their supervision, citing the Railways Act's comprehensive mechanisms for booking and delivery of consignments. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's findings that the Railways were negligent, as the consignment remained under their supervision and control after being unloaded.
The judgment highlights the Railways' duty to exercise reasonable foresight and care, a burden they failed to meet, as no evidence was provided to demonstrate their efforts to protect the goods from rain damage. Consequently, the High Court found no error in the Tribunal's decision, thus denying any interference.
The appeal's dismissal serves as a reminder to the Railway Administration of its obligations under the law and the necessity to uphold the trust placed in them by consignors. The Court's directive to remit the record to the Tribunal for execution of the award ensures the claimant receives the compensation due, along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.
Bottom Line:
Railways are liable for loss or damage to goods due to their negligence in handling and storing consignment under the Railways Act, 1989. The burden of proving reasonable foresight and care lies on the Railways.
Statutory provision(s): Railways Act, 1989 Section 93, Railways Act, 1989 Section 99, Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 Section 23
