[2026:RJ-JP:15767] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2509/2006 M/s Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited (A Government of Rajasthan Enterprises), having its Corporate Office at 4-Meera Marg, Udaipur and registered Office at C-89-90, Janpath, Lal Kothi Scheme, Jaipur through, Shri M.S. Khamesra, Sr. Manager (QCM) ----Appellant/Claimant Versus Union Of India, Through General Manager, Western Railway, Church Gate, Mumbai ----Respondent/Non-Claimant For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajay Shukla along with Ms. Jyoti Sharma & Mr. Shivam Sharma Mr. Amit Suroliya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandershekhar Sinha (CGC) with Mr. D.W. Yadav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment Date of hearing and conclusion of arguments 06.04.2026 Date on which the judgment was reserved 06.04.2026 Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced Full Judgment Date of pronouncement 16.04.2026 1. The present appeal was filed by delay and therefore, notices on application under Section 5 of the limitation Act, 1963 were issued on 02.11.2006. After service, the matter was admitted on 06.12.2017 and the record was called upon after 11 years. The Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Tribunal’) informed that the record [2026:RJ-JP:15767] (2 of 8) [CMA-2509/2006] pertaining to the matter has been destroyed on 13.03.2015. Thereafter, the parties were directed by this Court to produce record, whatsoever is available with them, but none have produced any record. Thus, on 06.04.2026, with consent of both the parties, the appeal was heard finally and the order was reserved. 2. The present civil misc. appeal has been preferred assailing the order dated 13.02.2006, passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, in OA-I-17’A’/2002, whereby the claim petition filed by the applicant-appellant under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1987’), was dismissed. 3. Briefly stated, the applicant-appellant, Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Limited, dispatched one consignment of 900.700 MT of Rock Phosphate (containing 31.5% P₂O₅) from Umra Railway Station to Shambhupura Railway siding on 12.02.2001. During transit, two BCK wagons (Nos. NE/39780 and NF/21943), carrying 37.4 MT and 37.7 MT respectively were derailed near Diamond Crossing, Ordi Village, District Chittorgarh. The Railway Administration unloaded the material at Shambhupura Railway Station at the ends of the plot. 3.1 The applicant-appellant submitted the Railway Receipt. On 26.02.2001, the Station Superintendent, Shambhupura, asked the applicant-appellant to take delivery of the goods. The applicant- appellant refused, stating that a commercial quality had been lost and the remaining material had deteriorated, rendering it unusable, and sought compensation of Rs. 1,55,135/-. [2026:RJ-JP:15767] (3 of 8) [CMA-2509/2006] 3.2 On 28.05.2001, the Divisional Commercial Manager, Ratlam, again requested the applicant-appellant to take delivery. The applicant-appellant reiterated its stand. Upon request, the applicant-appellant submitted the required documents on 17.08.2001. 3.3 Subsequently, by letter dated 28.11.2001, the Chief Commercial Manager informed the applicant-appellant that the material had reached the destination and was lying at Shambhupura Station. The applicant-appellant again asserted that the material was contaminated and unusable, and thereafter filed a claim petition under Section 16 of the Act of 1987. 4. The respondent Railway, in its reply, contended that the applicant-appellant had repeatedly refused to take delivery despite being informed that the goods were not contaminated. It further denied liability for the derailment and asserted that no compensation was payable. 5. The learned Tribunal, after hearing both parties, framed four issues and decided all of them against the applicant-appellant. It held that there was no evidence to prove that Rock Phosphate lost its properties due to such incident and that the applicant-appellant unreasonably refused to take delivery, thereby contributing to its own loss. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13.02.2006, the applicant-appellant preferred the present civil misc. appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is ex-facie illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law as the same suffers from error that are apparent on record. 7.1 Learned counsel for appellant argued that the learned [2026:RJ-JP:15767] (4 of 8) [CMA-2509/2006] Tribunal erred while arriving at the finding that the appellant failed to prove that the goods lost their commercial value at the time of derailment as the appellant had produced the test reports of the samples of the goods before the learned Tribunal which clearly showed the difference of the properties of the chemical composition of the goods. The goods were examined time and again and in each of the report it was found that there was a substantial difference in the composition of the goods which was sufficient enough to make it non-marketable and not fit for commercial use. 7.2. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Rock Phosphate is used for the purpose of the fertilizer and any minute discrepancy in the property of the good could result into the degradation of the fertilizer and the same could degrade the crop and would also lower down the marketability and the commercial value. Thus, the appellant was justified while not taking the delivery of the consignment and were able to duly establish the fact that there was a change in the property of the goods because of the derailment. 7.3 Learned counsel for the appellant contended that it was observed by the learned Tribunal that the appellant has not disclosed the properties to the respondent Railway at the time of loading of the consignment. Contrarily, as per the rule there was no requirement for the appellant to advance the properties of the goods to the respondent as at the time of the booking of the consignment; it was evident that the fertilizer is a good of perishable nature and is very likely to loose its very nature if there [2026:RJ-JP:15767] (5 of 8) [CMA-2509/2006] is any change in the weather or improper unloading of the material. 7.4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that it was the duty of the Railway to deliver the goods at the destination in safe and sound condition. Furthermore, the derailment of the train is due to the negligence of the respondent which resulted in loss to the appellant. Even no care was taken to preserve the consignment because of which the consigned goods were mixed with the local soil and as a consequence lost its real properties rendering it unfit for use. Hence, he prayed that the present civil misc. appeal be allowed and the impugned order be quashed and set aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even though the derailment of two BCK Wagons near the Shambhupura Railway Station is admitted, the respondent is not responsible for the derailment per-se, unless the negligence is proved. Further, no evidence has been produced by the applicant- appellant to establish negligence on part of the Railway Administration. 8.1. The appellant was time and again asked to receive the delivery of the consignment and unload the wagon at their own plot but the applicant-appellant refused to do so and thus, the same was done nearby the appellant’s plot. Thus, any subsequent deterioration, if at all, is attributable to the appellant’s own conduct and delay and not the respondent. 8.2. Furthermore, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the railway receipt clearly stipulated that the consignment contained loose Rock Phosphate and the wagons were directly [2026:RJ-JP:15767] (6 of 8) [CMA-2509/2006] loaded from plots. Even the quantity and quality were not supervised by the Railway Staff. Therefore, the respondent cannot be held liable for any alleged deficiency in the quality as the risk remained with the consignor. 8.3. Learned counsel for the respondent specifically pleaded that the applicant-appellant was duly called upon to take the delivery of the consignment. However, the appellant refused to accept the delivery, thereby contributing to any alleged loss. Thus, as is the settled principle of law, a party cannot take advantage of its own refusal or default. 8.4 Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that as per Section 93(G) of the Railways Act, 1989, the respondent is not liable in cases falling within statutory exceptions. The burden to prove contamination, loss of value and railway negligence is on the appellant but it has completely failed to do so, thus making the claim legally untenable. 8.5. Learned counsel for the respondent thus prayed that the present civil misc. appeal be kindly dismissed and the order passed by the learned Tribunal be upheld. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. The primary question that arises is whether the appellant has been able to establish that the goods were contaminated during transit and that such contamination was attributable to the negligence of the Railway Administration. 11. A bare perusal of the record reveals that the appellant has relied upon certain test reports to demonstrate that there was a change in the chemical composition of the Rock Phosphate. [2026:RJ-JP:15767] (7 of 8) [CMA-2509/2006] However, upon careful examination, this Court is of the staunch opinion that the appellant has not been able to establish that the test report dated 12.02.2001 was carried out in the presence of the Railway Authority. Further there is no justifiable reason for the appellant to refuse the acceptance of delivery of the consignment even after the request of the Railway on 26.02.2001. 12. Subsequently, test report dated 27.04.2002, i.e. test conducted after more than 14 months from the date of loading and after 12 months from the date of refusal to take delivery, cannot be made basis as the appellant has failed to demonstrate any justifiable reason for not taking the delivery. The perusal of the two reports do not indicate much changes in the properties of the consignment as recorded by the learned Tribunal. Even otherwise the appellant could not have refused to take the delivery as in case of failure in taking delivery, the provision of Section 84 of the Act of 1987 comes into play which governs the cases of unclaimed consignments. 13. This Court further finds that the appellant was repeatedly called upon by the Railway Authorities to take delivery of the goods. Despite such communications, the appellant chose not to accept the consignment. Even if it is assumed that some portion of the goods had been affected, the appellant was under an obligation to mitigate the loss by accepting the delivery and taking appropriate steps thereafter. The refusal to take delivery, without insisting upon a joint inspection or proper assessment, has contributed to the alleged loss and dis-entitled the appellant from claiming compensation on that ground. [2026:RJ-JP:15767] (8 of 8) [CMA-2509/2006] 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to prove that the goods were rendered unfit due to contamination during transit or that such damage was caused due to negligence of the Railway Administration. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed, and the order dated 13.02.2006 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, is affirmed. 16. No order as to costs. 17. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J Sudha/