FAO NO.3458 of 200 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. 1 The date when the judgment was reserved 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full pronounced 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Ms. Shreyans for the appellant Mr. for respondent No.1. HARKESH MANUJA, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Union of India under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, assailing the judgment and award dated 14.05.1998 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, application instituted by the respondent Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 came to be allowed and the appellant-Railway Administration was directed to pay a sum of along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization and, in the event of default in making payment within sixty days, further interest @ 15% per annum thereafter. 01 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3458 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. date when the judgment was reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Ms. Shreyansi Verma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the Union of India under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, assailing the judgment and award dated 14.05.1998 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, "the Tribunal"), whereby the claim application instituted by the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 came to be allowed and the Railway Administration was directed to pay a sum of along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization and, in the event of default in making payment within sixty days, further interest @ 15% per annum thereafter. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 3458 of 2001 (O&M) …Appellants …Respondent date when the judgment was reserved 20.07.2026 The date when the judgment is pronounced 01.08.2026 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 01.08.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is judgment is Full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA The present appeal has been preferred by the Union of India under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, assailing the judgment and award dated 14.05.1998 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, "the Tribunal"), whereby the claim Indian Oil Corporation Limited under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 came to be allowed and the Railway Administration was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,45,582/ along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization and, in the event of default in making payment within sixty days, 1 The present appeal has been preferred by the Union of India under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, assailing the judgment and award dated 14.05.1998 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, "the Tribunal"), whereby the claim Indian Oil Corporation Limited under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 came to be allowed and the s.1,45,582/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization and, in the event of default in making payment within sixty days, MOHMED ATIK 2026.08.01 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.3458 of 200 2. Briefly stating, the r containing Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) from IOC, Bajwa to IOC Depot, Jammu Tawi under Railway Receipt No.023404 dated 14.05.1995. During transit, one of the tank wagons bearing No. SE was detached from the original rake. The said wagon was thereafter transshipped into another tank wagon bearing No.45521 at Meerut before being forwarded to the destination. According to the respondent, such transshipment was undert the Railway Administration without associating any representative or Quality Control Officer of the respondent Jammu Tawi, the product contained in the transshipped wagon was allegedly found to have suffered deterioration in quality and was consequently downgraded from Aviation Turbine Fuel to Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) in accordance with the internal quality control norms of the Corporation. The respondent asserted that on account of such downgrading difference in value between ATF and SKO amounting to under Section 78 the Railway Administration, followed by several repre failed to evoke any favourable response, culminated in the institution of the claim petition before the Tribunal. 3. Upon notice, the appellant by filing a written statement. B maintainability and authorization of the person instituting the proceedings, it was pleaded that the goods were delivered under a clear receipt without any protest or reservation. It was further asserted that transshipment was carried out 01 (O&M) Briefly stating, the respondent-corporation booked seven tank wagons containing Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) from IOC, Bajwa to IOC Depot, Jammu Tawi under Railway Receipt No.023404 dated 14.05.1995. During transit, one of the tank wagons bearing No. SE-77150 allegedly developed was detached from the original rake. The said wagon was thereafter transshipped into another tank wagon bearing No.45521 at Meerut before being forwarded to the destination. According to the respondent, such transshipment was undert the Railway Administration without associating any representative or Quality Control Officer of the respondent-corporation. Upon receipt of the consignment at Jammu Tawi, the product contained in the transshipped wagon was allegedly found uffered deterioration in quality and was consequently downgraded from Aviation Turbine Fuel to Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) in accordance with the internal quality control norms of the Corporation. The respondent asserted that on account of such downgrading, it sustained a monetary loss equivalent to the difference in value between ATF and SKO amounting to under Section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 was thereafter served upon the Railway Administration, followed by several repre failed to evoke any favourable response, culminated in the institution of the claim petition before the Tribunal. Upon notice, the appellant-Railway Administration contested the claim by filing a written statement. Besides raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability and authorization of the person instituting the proceedings, it was pleaded that the goods were delivered under a clear receipt without any protest or reservation. It was further asserted that the original wagon having become sick, the transshipment was carried out from the applicant's depot at Meerut by the corporation booked seven tank wagons containing Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) from IOC, Bajwa to IOC Depot, Jammu Tawi under Railway Receipt No.023404 dated 14.05.1995. During transit, one of 77150 allegedly developed a technical defect and was detached from the original rake. The said wagon was thereafter transshipped into another tank wagon bearing No.45521 at Meerut before being forwarded to the destination. According to the respondent, such transshipment was undertaken by the Railway Administration without associating any representative or Quality corporation. Upon receipt of the consignment at Jammu Tawi, the product contained in the transshipped wagon was allegedly found uffered deterioration in quality and was consequently downgraded from Aviation Turbine Fuel to Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) in accordance with the internal quality control norms of the Corporation. The respondent asserted that on , it sustained a monetary loss equivalent to the difference in value between ATF and SKO amounting to ₹1,45,582/-. A notice B of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 was thereafter served upon the Railway Administration, followed by several representations, which, having failed to evoke any favourable response, culminated in the institution of the claim Railway Administration contested the claim esides raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability and authorization of the person instituting the proceedings, it was pleaded that the goods were delivered under a clear receipt without any protest or the original wagon having become sick, the the applicant's depot at Meerut by the 2 corporation booked seven tank wagons containing Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) from IOC, Bajwa to IOC Depot, Jammu Tawi under Railway Receipt No.023404 dated 14.05.1995. During transit, one of a technical defect and was detached from the original rake. The said wagon was thereafter transshipped into another tank wagon bearing No.45521 at Meerut before being forwarded to the aken by the Railway Administration without associating any representative or Quality corporation. Upon receipt of the consignment at Jammu Tawi, the product contained in the transshipped wagon was allegedly found uffered deterioration in quality and was consequently downgraded from Aviation Turbine Fuel to Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) in accordance with the internal quality control norms of the Corporation. The respondent asserted that on , it sustained a monetary loss equivalent to the . A notice B of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 was thereafter served upon sentations, which, having failed to evoke any favourable response, culminated in the institution of the claim Railway Administration contested the claim esides raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability and authorization of the person instituting the proceedings, it was pleaded that the goods were delivered under a clear receipt without any protest or the original wagon having become sick, the the applicant's depot at Meerut by the MOHMED ATIK 2026.08.01 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.3458 of 200 respondent-corporation itself in the presence of railway officials and, therefore, the Railway Administration could not be fastened with any deterioration in quality. It was also pleaded that there was neither any shortage in the quantity of the goods nor any contemporaneous complaint at the time of delivery and, consequently, the respondent was not entitled to claim compensation. The appellant further denied that the quality of the product had deteriorated during transit or that the alleged downgrading had any nexus with the carriage undertaken by the Railways. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned T issues:- “(i) (ii) (iii) entitled? (iv) 5. Upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal held that the respondent party to the contract of carriage, had the requisite locus standi to maintain the claim petition. While considering Issues No.2 and 3 together, the Tribunal noticed that the Railway Administration had taken inconsistent stands regarding the manner in which the transshipment was effected. Whereas the written statement suggested that the transshipment had the affidavit of the Railway's own witness disclosed that the transshipment had in fact been carried out by private labour engaged by the Railways after obtaining sanction from the competent railway au 01 (O&M) corporation itself in the presence of railway officials and, therefore, the Railway Administration could not be fastened with any deterioration in quality. It was also pleaded that there was neither any shortage in the quantity of the goods nor any contemporaneous complaint at the time of delivery and, consequently, the respondent was not entitled to claim compensation. The appellant further denied that the quality of the product had deteriorated during transit or that the alleged downgrading had any nexus with the carriage undertaken by the Railways. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned T (i) Whether the applicant has a right to sue? (ii) Whether the consignment was delivered under clear receipt? (iii) To what amount of compensation, if any, is the applicant entitled? (iv) Relief.” Upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal held that the respondent-corporation, being the consignor and party to the contract of carriage, had the requisite locus standi to maintain the claim hile considering Issues No.2 and 3 together, the Tribunal noticed that the Railway Administration had taken inconsistent stands regarding the manner in which the transshipment was effected. Whereas the written statement suggested that the transshipment had been undertaken by the respondent the affidavit of the Railway's own witness disclosed that the transshipment had in fact been carried out by private labour engaged by the Railways after obtaining sanction from the competent railway authorities. The Tribunal found the latter corporation itself in the presence of railway officials and, therefore, the Railway Administration could not be fastened with any liability for the alleged deterioration in quality. It was also pleaded that there was neither any shortage in the quantity of the goods nor any contemporaneous complaint at the time of delivery and, consequently, the respondent was not entitled to claim any compensation. The appellant further denied that the quality of the product had deteriorated during transit or that the alleged downgrading had any nexus with the On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following Whether the applicant has a right to sue? Whether the consignment was delivered under clear receipt? To what amount of compensation, if any, is the applicant Upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the corporation, being the consignor and party to the contract of carriage, had the requisite locus standi to maintain the claim hile considering Issues No.2 and 3 together, the Tribunal noticed that the Railway Administration had taken inconsistent stands regarding the manner in which the transshipment was effected. Whereas the written statement suggested been undertaken by the respondent-corporation itself, the affidavit of the Railway's own witness disclosed that the transshipment had in fact been carried out by private labour engaged by the Railways after obtaining thorities. The Tribunal found the latter 3 corporation itself in the presence of railway officials and, therefore, the liability for the alleged deterioration in quality. It was also pleaded that there was neither any shortage in the quantity of the goods nor any contemporaneous complaint at the time of any compensation. The appellant further denied that the quality of the product had deteriorated during transit or that the alleged downgrading had any nexus with the ribunal framed the following To what amount of compensation, if any, is the applicant Upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the corporation, being the consignor and party to the contract of carriage, had the requisite locus standi to maintain the claim hile considering Issues No.2 and 3 together, the Tribunal noticed that the Railway Administration had taken inconsistent stands regarding the manner in which the transshipment was effected. Whereas the written statement suggested corporation itself, the affidavit of the Railway's own witness disclosed that the transshipment had in fact been carried out by private labour engaged by the Railways after obtaining thorities. The Tribunal found the latter MOHMED ATIK 2026.08.01 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.3458 of 200 version to be more credible and concluded that the transshipment had admittedly been undertaken by the Railway Administration without associating any representative or Quality Control Officer of the respondent premise, it was held that the deterioration in quality resulting in downgrading of the product was attributable to the Railway Administration. Consequently, compensation equivalent to the difference in value between ATF and SKO amounting to ₹1,45,582/ interest, as noticed hereinbefore. Aggrieved against the aforesaid award, the Railway Administration has preferred the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal committed a manifest error in fastening liability upon the Railway Administration in the absence of any scientific or technical evidence establishing tha quality during transit. It was argued that the respondent neither obtained any laboratory analysis in the presence of railway officials nor produced any expert evidence to establish that the carriage. She further submitted that mere unilateral downgrading by the respondent in accordance with its internal quality control norms, could not constitute legal proof of deterioration attributable to the Ra It was further contended that the entire consignment was admittedly delivered without any shortage and the respondent accepted delivery under a clear receipt without seeking open delivery or recording any contemporaneous protest. According to the appellant, acceptance of delivery without objection completely demolishes the subsequent allegation regarding deterioration in quality. Learned 01 (O&M) version to be more credible and concluded that the transshipment had admittedly been undertaken by the Railway Administration without associating any representative or Quality Control Officer of the respondent premise, it was held that the deterioration in quality resulting in downgrading of the product was attributable to the Railway Administration. Consequently, compensation equivalent to the difference in value between ATF and SKO 1,45,582/- was awarded in favour of the respondent together with interest, as noticed hereinbefore. Aggrieved against the aforesaid award, the Railway Administration has preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal committed a manifest error in fastening liability upon the Railway Administration in the absence of any scientific or technical evidence establishing that the product delivered at destination actually deteriorated in quality during transit. It was argued that the respondent neither obtained any laboratory analysis in the presence of railway officials nor produced any expert evidence to establish that the Aviation Turbine Fuel was contaminated during carriage. She further submitted that mere unilateral downgrading by the respondent in accordance with its internal quality control norms, could not constitute legal proof of deterioration attributable to the Railways. It was further contended that the entire consignment was admittedly delivered without any shortage and the respondent accepted delivery under a clear receipt without seeking open delivery or recording any contemporaneous protest. rding to the appellant, acceptance of delivery without objection completely demolishes the subsequent allegation regarding deterioration in quality. Learned version to be more credible and concluded that the transshipment had admittedly been undertaken by the Railway Administration without associating any representative or Quality Control Officer of the respondent-corporation. On that premise, it was held that the deterioration in quality resulting in downgrading of the product was attributable to the Railway Administration. Consequently, compensation equivalent to the difference in value between ATF and SKO was awarded in favour of the respondent together with interest, as noticed hereinbefore. Aggrieved against the aforesaid award, the Railway Administration has preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal committed a manifest error in fastening liability upon the Railway Administration in the absence of any scientific or technical evidence t the product delivered at destination actually deteriorated in quality during transit. It was argued that the respondent neither obtained any laboratory analysis in the presence of railway officials nor produced any expert Aviation Turbine Fuel was contaminated during carriage. She further submitted that mere unilateral downgrading by the respondent in accordance with its internal quality control norms, could not constitute legal ilways. It was further contended that the entire consignment was admittedly delivered without any shortage and the respondent accepted delivery under a clear receipt without seeking open delivery or recording any contemporaneous protest. rding to the appellant, acceptance of delivery without objection completely demolishes the subsequent allegation regarding deterioration in quality. Learned 4 version to be more credible and concluded that the transshipment had admittedly been undertaken by the Railway Administration without associating any ration. On that premise, it was held that the deterioration in quality resulting in downgrading of the product was attributable to the Railway Administration. Consequently, compensation equivalent to the difference in value between ATF and SKO was awarded in favour of the respondent together with interest, as noticed hereinbefore. Aggrieved against the aforesaid award, the Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal committed a manifest error in fastening liability upon the Railway Administration in the absence of any scientific or technical evidence t the product delivered at destination actually deteriorated in quality during transit. It was argued that the respondent neither obtained any laboratory analysis in the presence of railway officials nor produced any expert Aviation Turbine Fuel was contaminated during carriage. She further submitted that mere unilateral downgrading by the respondent in accordance with its internal quality control norms, could not constitute legal It was further contended that the entire consignment was admittedly delivered without any shortage and the respondent accepted delivery under a clear receipt without seeking open delivery or recording any contemporaneous protest. rding to the appellant, acceptance of delivery without objection completely demolishes the subsequent allegation regarding deterioration in quality. Learned MOHMED ATIK 2026.08.01 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.3458 of 200 counsel also submitted that the Tribunal erred in drawing an adverse inference merely because of an Administration regarding the manner of transshipment, when such inconsistency by itself could not establish negligence or liability for the alleged loss. She further argued that there existed no statutory instruction requiring the presence of the respondent's Quality Control Officer at the time of transshipment and, therefore, the Tribunal committed a serious error in treating the absence of such officer as conclusiv premises, it was prayed that the impugned award be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the findings recorded therein we founded upon a proper appreciation of the pleadings and evidence and did not suffer from any perversity warranting interference in appeal. It was argued that the Railway Administration admittedly undertook transshipment after the original wagon became s transshipment was carried out through private labour engaged by the Railways after obtaining approval from the competent authority. The contradictory stand taken in the written statement, according t defence set up by the appellant and lends due corroboration to the respondent's case that the Railway Administration remained exclusively responsible for the handling of the consignment during the relevant period. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent had no control whatsoever over the transshipment process and the Railway Administration, being entrusted with the custody of a highly sensitive petroleum product, was under a 01 (O&M) counsel also submitted that the Tribunal erred in drawing an adverse inference merely because of an alleged inconsistency in the stand of the Railway Administration regarding the manner of transshipment, when such inconsistency by itself could not establish negligence or liability for the alleged loss. She further argued that there existed no statutory rule, contractual stipulation or binding instruction requiring the presence of the respondent's Quality Control Officer at the time of transshipment and, therefore, the Tribunal committed a serious error in treating the absence of such officer as conclusiv premises, it was prayed that the impugned award be set aside. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the findings recorded therein we founded upon a proper appreciation of the pleadings and evidence and did not suffer from any perversity warranting interference in appeal. It was argued that the Railway Administration admittedly undertook transshipment after the original wagon became sick and its own witness categorically admitted that such transshipment was carried out through private labour engaged by the Railways after obtaining approval from the competent authority. The contradictory stand taken in the written statement, according to the respondent, completely destroys the defence set up by the appellant and lends due corroboration to the respondent's case that the Railway Administration remained exclusively responsible for the handling of the consignment during the relevant period. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent had no control whatsoever over the transshipment process and the Railway Administration, being entrusted with the custody of a highly sensitive petroleum product, was under a counsel also submitted that the Tribunal erred in drawing an adverse inference alleged inconsistency in the stand of the Railway Administration regarding the manner of transshipment, when such inconsistency by itself could not establish negligence or liability for the alleged loss. She further rule, contractual stipulation or binding instruction requiring the presence of the respondent's Quality Control Officer at the time of transshipment and, therefore, the Tribunal committed a serious error in treating the absence of such officer as conclusive proof of negligence. On these premises, it was prayed that the impugned award be set aside. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the findings recorded therein we founded upon a proper appreciation of the pleadings and evidence and did not suffer from any perversity warranting interference in appeal. It was argued that the Railway Administration admittedly undertook transshipment after the original ick and its own witness categorically admitted that such transshipment was carried out through private labour engaged by the Railways after obtaining approval from the competent authority. The contradictory stand o the respondent, completely destroys the defence set up by the appellant and lends due corroboration to the respondent's case that the Railway Administration remained exclusively responsible for the handling of the consignment during the relevant period. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent had no control whatsoever over the transshipment process and the Railway Administration, being entrusted with the custody of a highly sensitive petroleum product, was under a 5 counsel also submitted that the Tribunal erred in drawing an adverse inference alleged inconsistency in the stand of the Railway Administration regarding the manner of transshipment, when such inconsistency by itself could not establish negligence or liability for the alleged loss. She further rule, contractual stipulation or binding instruction requiring the presence of the respondent's Quality Control Officer at the time of transshipment and, therefore, the Tribunal committed a serious error in e proof of negligence. On these Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the findings recorded therein were founded upon a proper appreciation of the pleadings and evidence and did not suffer from any perversity warranting interference in appeal. It was argued that the Railway Administration admittedly undertook transshipment after the original ick and its own witness categorically admitted that such transshipment was carried out through private labour engaged by the Railways after obtaining approval from the competent authority. The contradictory stand o the respondent, completely destroys the defence set up by the appellant and lends due corroboration to the respondent's case that the Railway Administration remained exclusively responsible for the Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent had no control whatsoever over the transshipment process and the Railway Administration, being entrusted with the custody of a highly sensitive petroleum product, was under a MOHMED ATIK 2026.08.01 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.3458 of 200 legal obligation to ensure that the product reached the destination in the same condition in which it was accepted for carriage. It was contended that the Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence and recorded findings of fact, which cannot be interfered with merely 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 9. The primary contention advanced on behalf of the appellant Administration is that the respondent failed to es evidence, that the Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) entrusted for carriage had actually deteriorated into Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) during transit. It has been argued that in the absence of any laboratory analysis or joint presence of railway officials, the unilateral decision of the respondent to downgrade the product in accordance with its internal quality control norms could not have formed the basis for fastening liability upon the Railways. Th has further emphasized that the consignee accepted delivery of the entire consignment under a clear receipt without lodging any protest or seeking open delivery and, therefore, no liability could subsequently be imposed upon the Railway Adminis 9.1 It is an admitted position that one of the tank wagons developed a technical defect during transit and the contents were transshipped into another wagon while the consignment remained Administration. Significantly, the appellant took inconsistent stands regarding such transshipment. While the written statement asserted that the transshipment was undertaken by the respondent, the affidavit of the Railway's 01 (O&M) ation to ensure that the product reached the destination in the same condition in which it was accepted for carriage. It was contended that the Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence and recorded findings of fact, which cannot be interfered with merely because another view may also be possible. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper The primary contention advanced on behalf of the appellant Administration is that the respondent failed to es evidence, that the Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) entrusted for carriage had actually deteriorated into Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) during transit. It has been argued that in the absence of any laboratory analysis or joint presence of railway officials, the unilateral decision of the respondent to downgrade the product in accordance with its internal quality control norms could not have formed the basis for fastening liability upon the Railways. Th has further emphasized that the consignee accepted delivery of the entire consignment under a clear receipt without lodging any protest or seeking open delivery and, therefore, no liability could subsequently be imposed upon the Railway Administration. The aforesaid submissions do not merit acceptance. It is an admitted position that one of the tank wagons developed a technical defect during transit and the contents were transshipped into another wagon while the consignment remained in the custody of the Railway Administration. Significantly, the appellant took inconsistent stands regarding such transshipment. While the written statement asserted that the transshipment was undertaken by the respondent, the affidavit of the Railway's ation to ensure that the product reached the destination in the same condition in which it was accepted for carriage. It was contended that the Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence and recorded findings of fact, which cannot be because another view may also be possible. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper The primary contention advanced on behalf of the appellant-Railway Administration is that the respondent failed to establish, by any cogent or scientific evidence, that the Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) entrusted for carriage had actually deteriorated into Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) during transit. It has been argued that in the absence of any laboratory analysis or joint sampling conducted in the presence of railway officials, the unilateral decision of the respondent to downgrade the product in accordance with its internal quality control norms could not have formed the basis for fastening liability upon the Railways. The appellant has further emphasized that the consignee accepted delivery of the entire consignment under a clear receipt without lodging any protest or seeking open delivery and, therefore, no liability could subsequently be imposed upon the tration. The aforesaid submissions do not merit acceptance. It is an admitted position that one of the tank wagons developed a technical defect during transit and the contents were transshipped into another in the custody of the Railway Administration. Significantly, the appellant took inconsistent stands regarding such transshipment. While the written statement asserted that the transshipment was undertaken by the respondent, the affidavit of the Railway's own witness admitted 6 ation to ensure that the product reached the destination in the same condition in which it was accepted for carriage. It was contended that the Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence and recorded findings of fact, which cannot be I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- Railway tablish, by any cogent or scientific evidence, that the Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) entrusted for carriage had actually deteriorated into Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) during transit. It has been argued sampling conducted in the presence of railway officials, the unilateral decision of the respondent to downgrade the product in accordance with its internal quality control norms could e appellant has further emphasized that the consignee accepted delivery of the entire consignment under a clear receipt without lodging any protest or seeking open delivery and, therefore, no liability could subsequently be imposed upon the It is an admitted position that one of the tank wagons developed a technical defect during transit and the contents were transshipped into another in the custody of the Railway Administration. Significantly, the appellant took inconsistent stands regarding such transshipment. While the written statement asserted that the transshipment was own witness admitted MOHMED ATIK 2026.08.01 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.3458 of 200 that it was carried out by private labour engaged by the Railways. The Tribunal rightly preferred the latter version and concluded that the transshipment was undertaken by the Railway Administration. Once the transshipment was admitted carried out during the custody of the Railways, the burden lay upon the appellant to establish that the prescribed safeguards were followed and that the quality of the product remained unaffected. No such evidence has been produced. In these circumstances, the Tribunal rightly drew an adverse inference against the Railway Administration. 9.2 The contention that delivery was accepted under a clear receipt also does not advance the appellant's case. A clear receipt merely acknowledges delivery of the consignment and cannot by itself defeat a claim relating to latent deterioration in quality, particularly when such deterioration is detected only after the product undergoes the consignee's quality control procedure. The Tribunal recorded findings of settled that an appellate Court would not interfere with such findings unless they are shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence. In Narayani Bai, reported as findings are reasonably based on the evidence on record, the appellate Court ought not to substitute its own view merely because another 9.3 In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tr supported by the material available on record and cannot be termed either perverse or arbitrary. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any patent illegality or misappreciation of evidence warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal fail. 01 (O&M) that it was carried out by private labour engaged by the Railways. The Tribunal rightly preferred the latter version and concluded that the transshipment was undertaken by the Railway Administration. Once the transshipment was admitted carried out during the custody of the Railways, the burden lay upon the appellant to establish that the prescribed safeguards were followed and that the quality of the product remained unaffected. No such evidence has been produced. In these es, the Tribunal rightly drew an adverse inference against the Railway Administration. The contention that delivery was accepted under a clear receipt also does not advance the appellant's case. A clear receipt merely acknowledges the consignment and cannot by itself defeat a claim relating to latent deterioration in quality, particularly when such deterioration is detected only after the product undergoes the consignee's quality control procedure. The Tribunal recorded findings of fact on the basis of the pleadings and evidence. It is well settled that an appellate Court would not interfere with such findings unless they are shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence. In , reported as 1983 (1) SCC 35, the Supreme Court held that where findings are reasonably based on the evidence on record, the appellate Court ought not to substitute its own view merely because another In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tr supported by the material available on record and cannot be termed either perverse or arbitrary. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any patent illegality or misappreciation of evidence warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. rdingly, all the grounds of appeal fail. that it was carried out by private labour engaged by the Railways. The Tribunal rightly preferred the latter version and concluded that the transshipment was undertaken by the Railway Administration. Once the transshipment was admitted carried out during the custody of the Railways, the burden lay upon the appellant to establish that the prescribed safeguards were followed and that the quality of the product remained unaffected. No such evidence has been produced. In these es, the Tribunal rightly drew an adverse inference against the Railway The contention that delivery was accepted under a clear receipt also does not advance the appellant's case. A clear receipt merely acknowledges the consignment and cannot by itself defeat a claim relating to latent deterioration in quality, particularly when such deterioration is detected only after the product undergoes the consignee's quality control procedure. The Tribunal fact on the basis of the pleadings and evidence. It is well settled that an appellate Court would not interfere with such findings unless they are shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence. In Madhusudan Das v. the Supreme Court held that where findings are reasonably based on the evidence on record, the appellate Court ought not to substitute its own view merely because another one is possible. In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are supported by the material available on record and cannot be termed either perverse or arbitrary. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any patent illegality or misappreciation of evidence warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 7 that it was carried out by private labour engaged by the Railways. The Tribunal rightly preferred the latter version and concluded that the transshipment was undertaken by the Railway Administration. Once the transshipment was admittedly carried out during the custody of the Railways, the burden lay upon the appellant to establish that the prescribed safeguards were followed and that the quality of the product remained unaffected. No such evidence has been produced. In these es, the Tribunal rightly drew an adverse inference against the Railway The contention that delivery was accepted under a clear receipt also does not advance the appellant's case. A clear receipt merely acknowledges the consignment and cannot by itself defeat a claim relating to latent deterioration in quality, particularly when such deterioration is detected only after the product undergoes the consignee's quality control procedure. The Tribunal fact on the basis of the pleadings and evidence. It is well settled that an appellate Court would not interfere with such findings unless they Madhusudan Das v. the Supreme Court held that where findings are reasonably based on the evidence on record, the appellate Court ought ibunal are supported by the material available on record and cannot be termed either perverse or arbitrary. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any patent illegality or misappreciation of evidence warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. MOHMED ATIK 2026.08.01 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.3458 of 200 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal rightly appreciated the pleadings and evid disputed consignment was transshipped by the Railway Administration during transit and that the appellant failed to establish that due care had been taken to preserve the quality of the product. The contradictory stand adopte appellant regarding the manner of transshipment further lends support to the respondent's case. None of the grounds raised by the appellant are sufficient to dislodge the well acceptance of delivery under a clear receipt, in the facts of the present case, does not absolve the Railway Administration of its liability for deterioration in the quality of the goods occurring while the consignment remained in its custody. 11. Consequen The judgment and award dated Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, are affirmed. The amount awarded by the Tribunal shall be paid to the respondent, if not 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. August 01, 202 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 01 (O&M) In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal rightly appreciated the pleadings and evid disputed consignment was transshipped by the Railway Administration during transit and that the appellant failed to establish that due care had been taken to preserve the quality of the product. The contradictory stand adopte appellant regarding the manner of transshipment further lends support to the respondent's case. None of the grounds raised by the appellant are sufficient to dislodge the well-reasoned findings recorded by the Tribunal. The plea regarding ce of delivery under a clear receipt, in the facts of the present case, does not absolve the Railway Administration of its liability for deterioration in the quality of the goods occurring while the consignment remained in its custody. Consequently, the present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The judgment and award dated 14.09.2001 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, are affirmed. The amount awarded by the Tribunal shall be paid to the respondent, if not already paid, in terms of the award. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal rightly appreciated the pleadings and evidence while concluding that the disputed consignment was transshipped by the Railway Administration during transit and that the appellant failed to establish that due care had been taken to preserve the quality of the product. The contradictory stand adopted by the appellant regarding the manner of transshipment further lends support to the respondent's case. None of the grounds raised by the appellant are sufficient to reasoned findings recorded by the Tribunal. The plea regarding ce of delivery under a clear receipt, in the facts of the present case, does not absolve the Railway Administration of its liability for deterioration in the quality of the goods occurring while the consignment remained in its custody. tly, the present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, are affirmed. The amount awarded by the Tribunal already paid, in terms of the award. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE 8 In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal. The ence while concluding that the disputed consignment was transshipped by the Railway Administration during transit and that the appellant failed to establish that due care had been taken to d by the appellant regarding the manner of transshipment further lends support to the respondent's case. None of the grounds raised by the appellant are sufficient to reasoned findings recorded by the Tribunal. The plea regarding ce of delivery under a clear receipt, in the facts of the present case, does not absolve the Railway Administration of its liability for deterioration in the tly, the present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, are affirmed. The amount awarded by the Tribunal Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed MOHMED ATIK 2026.08.01 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt