IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No. 573 of 2015 ----- UOI through Mohd. Abu Iqbal Humayun, R/o 12 ‘A’ Officer Colony, PO & PS Samastipur working as Chief Commercial Manager (Claim) East Central Railway, P.O & P.S.-Hajipur, Dist.-Patna (Bihar) … …. Appellant Versus M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (GOI Enterprize) at Purvanchal Bhavan, 771, Anandpur, 5th Floor, P.O & P.S.-Chaurangi, Kolkata … …. Respondent ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Tripathy, CGC For the Respondent : ----- Oral Order 11 / Dated : 05.03.2025 1. This appeal is against the award passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Case No. OA 1/RNC/2014/0001, whereby and whereunder compensation of Rs. 1,94,221/- has been fixed on the appellant for causing loss to the Respondent-Company. 2. As per the case of the case of the applicants, a consignment of 48 tank wagons including tank wagon No. ECR-58286, 58460, 58439, 58514 and NWR-47566 containing HSD was correctly ex-Vishakhapatnam to Ranchi Road vide RR No. 262000974. During delivery the above five tank wagons were found to have leakage from bottom delivery pipe fixed with flange resulting in shortage of 5381 litres of HSD. Due to the leakage Respondent- Company suffered a loss of Rs. 1,94,221/- with interest @ 18% per annum till its realization. 3. The claim was contested by the Appellant-Company inter alia on the ground that loading was not supervised by the railway staff and sender’s weight was accepted and it was done in a private siding of HPCL and not in a railway siding. Further, there were no adverse remarks on the 2 placement memo i.e. OPT 18 when the wagons were placed for delivery. 4. Learned Tribunal recorded a finding that there had been leakage causing loss to Respondent-Company and awarded compensation. 5. Appellant is in appeal against the award of compensation. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the Appellant-Company that the learned Tribunal has not considered the statement submitted by the railway and the quantification of loss of petroleum products is based on general assessment. 6. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the entire wagons were made over to the consignor at its siding and was loaded by the consigner, in the absence of any railway officers and staffs at the time of loading, therefore, the liability cannot be fastened on the railways in view of Section 65(2) of the Railways Act. As per this provision a railway receipt shall be prima facie evidence of the weight and the number of packages stated therein. Provided that in the case of a consignment in wagon-load or train-load and the weight or the number of packages is not checked by a railway servant authorized in this behalf, and a statement to that effect is recorded in such railway receipt by him, the burden of proving the weight or, as the case may be, the number of packages stated therein, shall lie on the consignor, the consignee or the endorsee. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, and on perusal of the materials on record, it is evident that the respondents had consigned altogether 48 tank wagons from Vishakhapatnam to Ranchi Road. No claim was raised with regard to 44 wagons and the claim is only with regard to 4 of such wagons which suffered leakage because of the fault in the tankers. 8. Learned Tribunal has dealt with this and assigned specific reasons for not accepting this plea. It has noted that the loading was indeed made from a private siding, however, the cost of the staff had been paid by the applicant. Therefore, there was nothing which prevented the railways 3 from witnessing the loading. The argument, that is being raised here, has been adequately answered in the impugned order itself. This appeal is shorn of any merit. Therefore, it is dismissed with cost. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Pawan