KVM 1/3 6 - FA 619 OF 2004.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 619/2004 UNION OF INDIA ….. APPELLANT VS THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. & ANR. ….. RESPONDENTS Adv. T. J. Pandian for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 31 JULY, 2026 P.C. :- 1) This First Appeal has been filed by the Railways, challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 23 July, 2003 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai(for Short ‘The Tribunal’) in Case No. OA 145 of 1990. The respondent – State Trading Corporation had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal alongwith M/s.New India Assurance Company Ltd. for recovery of Rs.67,903/- from the Railways. It was the case of the claimant before the Tribunal that they had entrusted a consignment of Rape Reed oil in tins from New Mulund Goods shed, Mumbai to KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR Digitally signed by KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR Date: 2026.08.08 15:44:28 +0530 KVM 2/3 6 - FA 619 OF 2004.doc Asansol. On arrival of the consignment at the destination station, the respondents observed that there was a shortage. On the written request for re-weighing of the consignment, the Railways allowed re- weighing and a shortage was detected and accordingly shortage certificates were issued. Based on the shortage certificates, the claim petition was filed. Written submissions were filed by the Railways. They admitted the booking particulars but stated that no notice was served on the respondent – Railways. The issues were framed by the Tribunal. All the issues were answered in favour of the claimant. The Tribunal held that notice under Section 78 B of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 was served on 8 June, 1987. The case of the Railways that the consignment which was booked with them, the shortage may be due to leakage owing to knocks or jerks during transit and that it is not possible for a few railway staff at forwarding station to examine the condition of tins or to supervise the loading of the consignments comprising thousands of tins on a single day besides doing the allied work connected with the booking of the goods. Hence, the Railways cannot be held liable. Hence, the Railways cannot be held liable. It was the case of the claimant that the Railways having issued RRs, they are liable for any shortage at the time of delivery because the shortage might have been taken place during the course of transit. Therefore, there is negligence or KVM 3/3 6 - FA 619 OF 2004.doc misconduct on the part of the Railways in the carriage of the consignments. 2) As per shortage certificates, a total quantity of 6159 kg of oil was short delivered in this case. As per the case of the claimant, the affidavit of evidence filed by the Chief Marketing of the respondent – State Trading Corporation, the value of consignment of the relevant time was Rs.9.50 per kg. Therefore, the claim was at the rate of Rs.9.50 per kg and since the total quantity shortage 6159 kg of oil, the said figure after multiplying Rs.9.50 per kg will be valued at Rs.58,510.50 paise. 3) The Tribunal allowed the claim at the rate of Rs.58,510.50 with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of the judgment. 4) Considering the evidence laid down by the claimant and there being no evidence on behalf of the Railways, I do not find any perversity in the order dated 23 July, 2003 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai in Case No. OA 145 of 1990. 5) Hence, First Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. [RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]