IFFCO vs NDCR BUILDING

OA(I)/ADI/2019/0001 Page 1 Before Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench.

Coram: Shri.

Vinay Goel, Member (Judicial) Shri.

Raj Kumar Manocha, Member (Technical) CASE No.

OA(I)/ADI/2019/0001 Date of Institution: 15.04.2019 Date of Decision: 04.04.2024 Indian Farmers Fertiliser Co-Operative Ltd.

A multi-Unit Co-Operative Society registered under Mumbai Co-Operative Societies Act (Act VII of 1925) having its Registered Corporate Office at IFFCO SADAN, C-1, District Centre, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017 and its Plant at Kandla, Kutch-370210, Gujarat. ……….APPLICANT -VERSUS- (1) Union of India Through General Manager Northern Railway, NDCR Building, New Delhi. (2) Union of India Through General Manager Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai. (3) M/s.

Manoj Ji & Company Pvt.

Ltd. (Railway Out Agency), Registered Office at B-4/94, Ashok Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi. …RESPONDENTS Mr.

K.M.

Shah, Ld.

Counsel for the Applicant.

Ms.

R.T.

Jain, Ld.

Counsel for the Respondent.

CLAIM FOR Rs.

2,07,05,278/- Judgment This OA has been filed for Rs.

2,07,05,278/- for non-delivery of DAP Indigenous Chemical Fertilizer of 1024 metric tons by the Respondent Railway(s) in respect of RR booked on 23.03.2017.

Initially the Applicant Society filed claim against Union of India impleading Respondent No.1 and 2 through General Manager-Northern Railway and General Manager-Western Railway respectively.

The Railway appeared and filed objection of non-joinder of necessary party, so by way of amendment the Applicant subsequently impleaded M/s.

Manoj Ji & Company as Respondent No.3. but no relief has been claimed against Respondent No.3 OA(I)/ADI/2019/0001 Page 2 2.

In the OA it is pleaded that the Applicant is a Multi-Unit Co-operative Society registered under Mumbai Co-Operative Societies Act (Act VII of 1925).

The Applicant booked DAP indigenous Chemical Fertilizer under invoice no.

16JK0015 under Railway Receipt (for short ‘RR’) no.

262006126 dtd 23.03. dtd 23.03.2017 from IFFCO BG siding Gandhidham (for short ‘IFFCO siding’) to Srinagar via Udhampur Railway station (for short ‘UHP’).

The said consignment was a chemical fertilizer for manure purpose and was to be delivered in a time bound manner.

The consignment was hydroscopic in nature and its nutrient value would fall due to moisture and prolonged storage besides causing damage to granulated/prilled from of the contents.

The Applicant has claimed that out of various goods entrusted to the Railway for safe delivery, the Railway had failed to deliver part of the consignment amounting to 1024 MT (metric ton) (20480 bags) as covered under the above RR.

3.

The Respondent, upon notice, appeared and filed its written statement and denied its liabilities and also denied averments made in OA.

The Respondent took objection that total booked consignment was 3944 MT as per RR, whereas the Applicant has filed the claim of non-delivery of consignment of 1024 MT including a claim of Rs.

2,07,05,278/- of its consignment, which was booked to “self” by the Applicant from IFFCO siding to Srinagar via UHP and all 58 wagons arrived with seal intact.

After UHP, the Railway Out Agency i.e.

M/s.

Manoj Ji & Co., had taken the delivery under clear signature delivery as per station record.

Further no remarks were made related to the consignment in the delivery book.

Those 58 wagons were BCNHL wagons i.e. covered boogies, in which the consignment was in absolute sound condition material as loaded by the Applicant at the booking station.

The consignment had arrived on 26.03.2017 at 17:50 pm and had been released on 27.03.2017 at 13:45 pm and delivered to M/s.

Manoj Ji & Co. (hereinafter referred to as ‘out-agency’) under clear signature delivery at UHP.

4.

It is further pleaded that, as per agreement made between the Railway Administration and the Out Agency for lapses regarding non-delivery or short delivery OA(I)/ADI/2019/0001 Page 3 to the Applicant, the Out Agency will be responsible an onsible and not the Railway administration.

As per para 3.02 of the agreement, “the contractor shall carry goods at its own risk and responsibility and shall be responsible for and shall make good and indemnify the Railway Administration against all the claims, demands, suits, losses, damages, costs and expenses what so ever on account of any injury, damages or loss, etc.

Caused to any person and property resulting from directly or indirectly from any act of omission or commission on the part of the contractor or his servant or employee.” Furthermore, as per para 3.09 of the same “All inward goods shall be consigned to be in the contractor’s possession and in his care and custody and at his risk and responsibility from the movement these shall have been delivered to and signed for by the contractor or by a person authorized to act on his behalf, at the place where carriage by the Railway Ceases.” 5.

It is further submitted that the Applicant has stated that the consignment pending with Railway Out Agency and the Buffer Stockiest refused to unload because of the wet condition of goods.

It is to state that all the transactions/ communications were held between the Railway Out Agency, and Buffer Stockiest at Srinagar.

The Applicant has not mentioned anywhere the details of consignment offered first/second/third time by the Railway Out Agency to Buffer Stockiest and when the Buffer Stockiest refused and in what condition as the total consignment was 3944 MT and the Applicant are claiming non-delivery of 1024 MT only, which means the Buffer Stockiest has taken the delivery of the remaining consignment.

The reasons are not clearly mentioned by the Applicant and no transactions/ communications are shown between the Railway Out Agency and Buffer Stockiest as and when on which date/dates the consignment was delivered to them.

6. o them.

6.

It is further submitted that as per the copy of RR the Cartage Charges are paid by the Railway administration to the Railway Out Agency at Udhampur Railway Station, at the rate of Rs.

1810/- per ton i.e.

Rs.

1810 x 3944 MT = Rs.

71,38,640/-.

A total amount of Rs.

71,38,640/- as Cartage Charges are paid to the Railway Out Agency for delivery of the consignment from Udhampur Railway Station to Srinagar.

As per the Delivery Book, all the consignment was taken under clear signature and no OA(I)/ADI/2019/0001 Page 4 DDPC (Damage & Deficiency Post Card) has been issued with respect to the quantity short received by the SS/UHP.

A letter has been issued by the SS/UHP for the delivery of consignment.

In delivery book it is clearly written that, "Received all the 74,240 Bags complete" at Khasra No.

44, Mauza Nursing Garh, Srinagar (Kashmir).

It is further submitted that the Railway Administration is protected against the liability under section 93 of the Railways Act, 1989.

Hence the Applicant is not entitled to get alleged sum as compensation and the application is required to be dismissed.

7.

From the pleadings of the parties following issues framed on 10.10.2019. (1) Whether the Applicant prove the case of non-delivery of booked consignment – DAP Indigenous Chemical Fertilizer 1024 MT (20480 bags) due to negligence of Respondent Railway? (2) Whether the consignment goods delivered under clear signature to the Applicant at Udhampur and as such no claim is maintainable? (3) Whether the Agent Manoj Ji & Co.Pvt.

Ltd.

Is necessary party and its effect of non-joinder of the party? (4) Whether the Railway Administration is protected against the liability in view of Section 93 of the Railways Act, 1989? (5) What compensation, if any, the Applicant entitled to? (6) What order?

8.

On behalf of the Applicant, Sh.

Gauran Kanubhai Amin, Sr.

Manager (Transportation) at IFFCO Ltd. at Kandla stepped into witness box as AW/1 and proved on record certified documents i.e. ments i.e.

Railway Receipt no.

262006126 dtd.

23.03.2017 at Exh.A/1, CRR report of RR at Exh.A/2, Dispatch Invoice for the RR at Exh.A/3, Material Dispatch Advice cum Gate Pass dtd.

23.03.2017 at Exh.A/4, Certificate issued by the Railway Out Agency at Exh.A/5, Letter/Notice issued by the Applicant company to various authorities of Railway at Exh.A/6, Acknowledgement Receipt of above Notice at Exh.A/7, Letter issued by the Applicant company at Exh.A/8, Reply letter of Railway dated 23.10.2017 at Exh.A/9, Letter issued by CCO, OA(I)/ADI/2019/0001 Page 5 Western Railway at Exh.A/10, Reminder Letter by Applicant at Exh.A/11-20, Letter issued by IFFCO-Jammu to CCO, New Delhi at Exh.A/21, Minutes of meeting at Exh.A/22 and Forwarding Note at Exh.A/23.

The Respondent cross-examined him as under: “There was non-delivery of 1024 M.T.

We have lodged the claim for said 1024 M.T.

I have gone through the Railway receipt (exhibit A-1) after having booked the goods from Western Railway to Northern Railway.

It is true that there is mention in exhibit A-1 from ‘A’ to ‘B’ about the goods being carried from Udhampur to Srinagar through Railway Out Agency namely M/s Manoj Ji and Company Private Limited.

I am aware about the reconciliation meeting held among Sr.DCM-Firozpur, IFFCO and Manoj Ji and company private limited on 09.08.2018.

I am aware about the commitment made by Manoj Ji and company private limited to deliver the subject material within 21 days. शपथपत्र के मद सं 3 में अंककत तथ्य बिलकुल सही है। Exh A/1, RR पर कुल 3712 मीट्रिक टन माल िुक ककया था। यह वज़न Exh A/1 में ‘C-D’ स्थान पर अंककत है। Exh A/1 मे कुल ककतने िैग िुक ककए गए थे यह मुझे मुह जुिानी याद नहीं है, मैं RR देखकर िता सकता ह ूँ। गवाह ने RR देखकर िताया कक इस RR में 74240 िैग िुक ककए गए थे जोकक ‘E- F’ पर अंककत है। यह माल उधमपुर, श्रीनगर के ललए िुक ककया गया था जोकक Exh A/1 में ‘A-B’ स्थान पर अंककत है। मेरे द्वारा Exh A/1 के जररये 74240 िैग िुक कराये गए थे, इसमे से ककतने िैग नहीं लमले, यह मैं क्लैम याचिका देखकर िता सकता िता सकता ह ूँ। क्लैम याचिका देखकर गवाह ने कहा कक हमारी कंपनी को 20480 िैग delivered नहीं हुए। कंपनी ने 20480 िेग की no delivery का ही क्लैम दायर ककया है। Non-delivered िैग के अलावा ििे हुए िेगो की जो delivery ली गयी, वह ककस व्यक्क्त ने, ककस तारीख को और ककस स्थान पर ली, यह मैं कोटट की फ़ाइल देखकर िता सकता ह ूँ। गवाह ने पत्रावली देखकर कहा कक यह delivery ट्रदनांक 07.09.2017 को Shri U.C.

Bajpayee, Jt.

General Manager, Kandla, IFFCO, ने उधमपुर में ली। मैंने क्लैम याचिका के साथ जो िैग deliver हुए, उससे संिक्धधत कागजात पेश ककए है, यह मैं पत्रावली देखकर िता सकता ह ूँ। गवाह ने पत्रावली देखकर कहा कक वह Exh A/5 है। गवाह ने पुनः कहा कक मैंने delivery लेने वाले अचधकारी का नाम - Shri U.C.

General Manager, Kandla, IFFCO, िताया है वह मैंने गलती से िता ट्रदया। Exh.A/5 के आधार पर मैं यह नहीं िता सकता कक यह delivery ककस अचधकारी द्वारा ली गयी। delivery लेने वाले अचधकारी के हस्ताक्षर Exh.A/5 में ‘A-B’ स्थान पर अंककत है। OA(I)/ADI/2019/0001 Page 6 Exh.A/5 में delivery ललए गए 53760 िैग अंककत नहीं है। Exh.A/5 में delivery की ट्रदनांक 07.09.2017 ‘C-D’ व delivery का स्थान उधमपुर, ‘E-F’ स्थान पर अंककत है। यह कहना सही है कक non-delivery का नोट्रटस Exh.A/6, ट्रदनांक 07.09.2017 को ट्रदया गया। गवाह ने पत्रावली देखकर कहा कक इस पत्रावली में उधमपुर स्टेशन पर माल की delivery लेने का कोई भी असल दस्तावेज़ पेश नहीं ककया है। delivery लेने का स्थान श्रीनगर, IFFCO का गोदाम था। यह गोदाम श्रीनगर में ककस स्थान पर क्स्थत है, यह मुझे पता नहीं। गवाह ने पत्रावली देखकर कहा कक श्रीनगर के गोदाम का पता Exh.A/3 में ‘A-B’ स्थान पर अंककत है। ‘A- B’ पते में ललखा हुआ नाम “Shauqut Ahmad Bhat” का अथट है कक यह एक Co-operative mandali है जोकक उस क्षेत्र में ककसानो को IFFCO का खाद देती है। Exh.A/1 के जररये जो माल कांडला से भेजा गया वह “Shauqut Ahmad Bhat” नाम की एक Co-operative mandali को भेजा गया। यह कहना सही है कक Exh A/1 में consignee “Shauqut Ahmad Bhat” जो Co-operative mandali है। Exh A/1 में consignee का नाम ‘G-H’ स्थान पर अंककत है जोकक M/s IFFCO, Srinagar (Somu) O/A IFFC है। यह कहना सही है कक Shauqut Ahmad qut Ahmad Bhat द्वारा Exh A/1 में वर्णटत माल की डेलीवेरी ली गयी, इस िात का कोई भी दस्तावेज़ मैंने पत्रावली में पेश नहीं ककया है। मुझे इस िात की जानकारी नहीं है कक रेल्वे ने Exh A/1 में अंककत कुल 74240 िैग, रेल्वे Out agency M/s Manoj ji & Company को उधमपुर रेल्वे स्टेशन पर 27.03.2017 को सही हालत में deliver कर ट्रदये। मुझे इस िात की जानकारी नहीं है कक Shri Swatenter Sharma, State Marketing Manager, IFFCO - J&K, ने ट्रदनांक 09.08.2018 को reconciliation meeting में यह माना कक Exh.A/1 में अंककत सम्प णट माल सही हालत में रेल्वे ने Out agency - M/s Manoj ji & Company को, deliver कर ट्रदया था। मुझे इस िात की जानकारी नहीं है कक Exh.A/1 का माल उधमपुर स्टेशन पर, ट्रदनांक 27.03.2017 को पहुूँि गया। यह कहना गलत है कक हमने ट्रदनांक 23.03.2017 से ट्रदनांक 07.09.2017 तक का रेल्वे या out agency से ककया गया पत्रािार, इस पत्रावली में पेश नहीं ककया गया है। गवाह ने पत्रावली देखकर कहा कक वह पत्रािार Exh.A/6 है जोकक ट्रदनांक 07.09.2017 को िना है। यह कहना सही है कक ट्रदनांक 23.03.2017 से ट्रदनांक 07.09.2017 के िीि में Exh A/1 के माल जोकक moisture sensitive and storage sensitive के िावज द भी उस माल की delivery, partial delivery, non-delivery के संिंध में कोई पत्रािार पेश नहीं ककया है। यह कहना सही है कक वह पत्रािार इसललए पेश नहीं गया क्योंकक ऐसा कोई पत्रािार हुआ ही नहीं था। मुझे Railway Act,1989, Section 81 & 82 की जानकारी नहीं है। मुझे इस िात की जानकारी नहीं है कक रेल्वे में माल की open delivery व partial delivery लेने का प्रावधान हो। ि ंकक इस प्रावधान की जानकारी नहीं है इसललए रेल्वे से कभी भी open delivery व partial delivery नहीं मांगी गयी। मैं ‘Buffer stockist’ शब्द का अथट नहीं समझता ह ूँ। शपथपत्र के मद सं 6 में ‘Buffer stockist’ शब्द मैंने गलती से अंककत कर ट्रदया है। शपथपत्र की मद सं 7 में भी मैंने गलती से अंककत कर ट्रदया है। मुझे याद नहीं है कक मैंने क्लैम याचिका व शपथपत्र में OA(I)/ADI/2019/0001 Page 7 मैंने यह ललखा हो कक मेरे कंपनी के Buffer Stockist ने माल उतारने से इंकार ककया हो। यह कहना गलत है कक उधमपुर स्टेशन पर पहुंिा हुआ सही हालत का माल, ‘Buffer stockist’ की गलती के कारण, श्रीनगर ण, श्रीनगर में नहीं उतारा जा सका। मुझे Buffer Stockist का नाम नहीं पता और न ही माल के खराि होने के संिंध में Buffer Stockist के र्खलाफ कोई कायटवाही करी। यह कहना गलत है कक कंपनी ने Buffer Stockist को ििाने के ललए ट्रदनांक 27.03.2017 से 07.09.2017 तक की अवचध का delivery/non-delivery से संिक्धधत पत्रािार पेश नहीं ककया है। मुझे इस िात की जानकारी नहीं है कक रेल्वे ने 27.03.2017 को Exh A/1 का सम्प णट माल उधमपुर रेल्वे स्टेशन पर, M/s Manoj Ji & Company, Respondent no 3 को “under clear signature” सही हालत में handover ककया गया था। मुझे इस िात की जानकारी है कक उधमपुर रेल्वे स्टेशन से श्रीनगर के IFFCO के गोदाम तक माल पहुूँिाने की क्ज़म्मेदारी Respondent सं 3 की थी। मुझे इस िात की जानकारी नहीं है कक IFFCO के श्रीनगर गोदाम में माल को उतारना, तोलना व stock register में अंककत करने की क्ज़म्मेदारी Buffer Stockist की थी। मेरे अनुसार तो उक्त सभी कायट कंपनी के field officer को करने थे। Field officer ने यह सभी कायट ककए थे। Field officer की सम्प णट ररपोटट Exh.A/2 है। यह Exh.A/2 ट्रदनांक 25.01.2019 को िना है। Exh.A/1 में से जो माल श्रीनगर गोदाम में ट्रदनांक 13.04.2017 को पहुूँिा, उसकी Field officer द्वारा ट्रदनांक 13.04.2017 को जो ररपोटट िनाई गयी वह ररपोटट पत्रावली में पेश नहीं है। Exh.A/1 में से जो माल श्रीनगर गोदाम में ट्रदनांक 02.05.2017 को पहुूँिा, उसकी Field officer द्वारा ट्रदनांक 02.05.2017 को जो ररपोटट िनाई गयी वह ररपोटट पत्रावली में पेश नहीं है। Exh.A/1 में से जो माल श्रीनगर गोदाम में ट्रदनांक 02.05.2017 को और पहुूँिा, उसकी भी Field officer द्वारा ट्रदनांक 02.05.2017 को जो ररपोटट िनाई गयी वह ररपोटट पत्रावली में पेश नहीं है। Exh.A/1 में से जो माल श्रीनगर गोदाम में ट्रदनांक 16.05.2017 को पहुूँिा, उसकी Field officer द्वारा ट्रदनांक 16.05.2017 को जो ररपोटट िनाई गयी वह ररपोटट पत्रावली में पेश नहीं है। Exh.A/1 में से जो माल श्रीनगर गोदाम में ट्रदनांक 31.05.2017 को पहुूँिा, उसकी Field officer द्वारा ट्रदनांक 31.05.2017 को जो ररपोटट िनाई गयी वह ररपोटट पत्रावली में पेश नहीं है। Exh.A/1 में से जो माल श्रीनगर गोदाम में ट्रदनांक 17.06.2017 को पहुूँिा, उसकी Field officer द्वारा ट्रदनांक 17. रदनांक 17.06.2017 को जो ररपोटट िनाई गयी वह ररपोटट पत्रावली में पेश नहीं है। Exh.A/1 में से जो माल श्रीनगर गोदाम में ट्रदनांक 30.06.2017 को पहुूँिा, उसकी Field officer द्वारा ट्रदनांक 30.06.2017 को जो ररपोटट िनाई गयी वह ररपोटट पत्रावली में पेश नहीं है। यह सभी ररपोटट हमारे कायाटलय में सुरक्षक्षत है और मैं उधहें पेश कर सकता ह ूँ। मैं अपने साथ आज Exh.R/1 से Exh.R/14 दस्तावेज़ लाया ह ूँ । Exh.R/1 ट्रदनांक 13.04.2017 को 1 pm पर िनाया गया है । यह कहना गलत है कक यह रेक प्लेसमेंट का तारीख व समय हो िक्ल्क यह तो Exh.R/1 को िनाने कक तारीख व समय है । यह कहना सही है कक Exh.R/1 पर कमेटी के अधय सदस्य हरक्जधदर लसंह के हस्ताक्षर नहीं है । यह कहना भी OA(I)/ADI/2019/0001 Page 8 सही है Exh.R/1 पर कमेटी के सदस्य शौकत िट्ट के हस्ताक्षर कक नीिे ट्रदनांक नहीं है इसललए यह नहीं कहा जा सकता कक शौकत िट्ट ने इस Exh.R/1 पर कि हस्ताक्षर ककए हैं । Exh.R/1 में जो माल 640 मीट्रिक टन प्राप्त हुआ है वह ट्रदनांक 13.04.2017 को ही प्राप्त हुआ है । 640 मीट्रिक टन माल ट्रदनांक 13.04.2017 को प्राप्त होने की िात Exh.R/1 में A से B स्थान पर अंककत है । यह कहना गलत है कक Exh.R/1 शौकत िट्ट द्वारा ट्रदनांक 13.04.2017 को हस्ताक्षररत नहीं ककया गया । यह कहना गलत है कक Exh.R/1 क्जस ट्रदन माल प्राप्त हुआ उसकी ररपोटट न होकर उसके िाद िनी हुई consignment receipt report हो । यह कहना सही है कक consignment receipt report िनाई जाती और वह ररपोटट कायाटलय की पत्रावली में होती है और उस पर फील्ड ऑकफसर के हस्ताक्षर होते है । यह ररपोटट माल प्राप्त होने के तुरंत िाद वर्ट 2017 में हाथ से िनाई जाती थी । Exh.R/2 प्रत्येक वेगन में ककतने िेग व ककतनी मात्र में माल आया उसका वववरण जो कक computer से िना हुआ है । Exh.R/2 ट्रदनांक 13.04.2017 को िना है । यह कहना सही है कक Exh.R/2 consignment receipt report है । Exh.R/1 व Exh.R/2 साथ-साथ िनाए जाते हैं । Exh.R/2 में A से B स्थान पर वेयर हाउस अचधकारी के हस्ताक्षर नहीं हैं कफर कहा कक शौकत ही वेयर हाउस अचधकारी है और उसके हस्ताक्षर C से D स्थान पर हैं । यह कहना सही है कक शौकत क्जसके हस्ताक्षर Exh.R/2 में C से D स्थान पर हैं वह वेयर हाउस अचधकारी नहीं है । यह कहना सही है मैंने आज जो दस्तावेज़ Exh. तावेज़ Exh.R/1 से Exh.R/14 पेश ककए हैं उसमें माल क्जस गोदाम में गया उस गोदाम के buffer stockiest के हस्ताक्षर नहीं है । यह कहना सही है कक Exh.R/1 से Exh.R/14 व मेरे द्वारा दावा याचिका के साथ प्रस्तुत सम्प णट दस्तावेज़ में भी माल क्जस गोदाम में गया उसकी प्राक्प्त रसीद नहीं है । यह कहना सही है कक Exh.R/1 से Exh.R/14 क्जन रक्जस्टरों के आधार पर िने है वे रक्जस्टर धयायालय में पेश नहीं ककए गए हैं । ऐसे रक्जस्टर अक्स्तत्व में है या नहीं मैं नहीं िता सकता, प छताछ करके ही िता पाऊूँगा । हमारी कंपनी में buffer stockiest को stockiest ही िोलते हैं परंतु मैं आज 2017 के श्रीनगर गोदाम के stockiest का नाम नहीं िता सकता । Exh.A/5 Manoj Ji कंपनी द्वारा िनाया गया है व इस पर हमारी कंपनी के अचधकारी के भी हस्ताक्षर हैं परंतु ककसके हैं ये मैं आज नहीं िता सकता । Exh.A/5 य ररया व DAP दोनों के संिंध में है इस पत्र के अनुसार 32,228 िेग जो कम है उसमे य ररया व DAP दोनों तरह के िेग शालमल है । यह कहना सही है कक Exh.A/5 में ललखा है कक ट्रदनांक 07.09.2017 को 21,179 िेग DAP के deliver नहीं हुये । यह कहना सही है कक हमारी दावा याचिका DAP के 20,480 िेग कक non-delivery के संिंध में पेश की गई है । यह कहना सही है ट्रदनांक 07.09.2017 को 21,179 िेग कम थे इसके िाद buffer stock में कुछ िेग और लमले इसललए हमने 20,480 िेग का दावा पेश ककया । ट्रदनांक 07.09.2017 के िाद ककतनी वेगन आए या नहीं यह मैं नहीं िता सकता । यह कहना सही है कक अंततम consignment receipt report ट्रदनांक 30.06.2017 की है और इसके पश्ियात कोई भी consignment receipt report नहीं िनी । ट्रदनांक 07.09.2017 के िाद जो िेग लमले उनकी OA(I)/ADI/2019/0001 Page 9 consignment receipt report क्यों नहीं िनी यह िात Manoj Ji & Company ही िता सकती है । consignment receipt report िनाने का काम Manoj Ji & कंपनी का नहीं है यह काम IFFCO के फील्ड ऑकफसर शौकत िट्ट का है । यह ररपोटट क्यों नहीं िनी यह िात केवल शौकत िट्ट ही िता सकता है । शौकत िट्ट ने यह ररपोटट उसने क्यों नहीं िनाई यह प छताछ marketing division ने की होगी, उस समय के marketing डडववजन के इंिाजट का नाम मैं नहीं िता सकता । उस समय की files CBI की enquiry में जब्त की होगी । यह कहना गलत है कक जीतने िेगों की non-delivery -delivery का claim दायर ककया है वे सभी िेग श्रीनगर के गोदाम में पहुूँि गए थे पर buffer stockiest द्वारा उन िेगों की प्राक्प्त स्वीकृतत न देने व refusal to unload consignment के कारण आपके द्वारा non-delivery ट्रदखाई जा रही है । शपथ पत्र के मद संख्या-6 से मेरा अलभप्राय है कक “हम क्जस condition में माल भेजते हैं उसी condition में प्राप्त करते हैं । शपथ पत्र के मद संख्या-7 से मेरा अलभप्राय है कक “out agency व नेशनल रेक पॉइंट, buffer stockiest कक रसीद, ट्रदनांक 17-22.08.2017, उसके साथ जो कंपनी का रेकॉडट है वह Exh.A/5 में है ।“ यह कहना गलत है कक भेजे गए माल के संिंध में मुख्य वववाद reconciliation of dispatches from Railway Out Agency with records of receipt and acknowledgment by the buffer stockiest था । ट्रदनांक 30.06.2017 से 07.09.2017 के मध्य ककसी प्रकार का पत्र व्यवहार रेलवे से क्यों नहीं ककया गया इसका कारण मैं नहीं िता सकता ह ूँ यह िात marketing division िता सकता है । हमारा वववाद तो यह है कक हमें 1024 मीट्रिक टन माल रेलवे से नहीं लमला है । यह कहना सही है कक ट्रदनांक 30.06.2017 से 07.09.2017 के मध्य का रेलवे से ककसी प्रकार का पत्र व्यवहार हमने पेश नहीं ककया है । मैं Railways Act, 1989 का Section 82 ना मैंने पढ़ा है और ना ही मैं इसके िारे में नहीं जानता ह ूँ । मैं यह नहीं िता सकता कक हमने क्जस consignee को माल भेजा था उसने रेलवे से partial delivery certificate ललया था या नहीं । हमने consignee से partial delivery certificate नहीं मांगा । मैं तो Exh.R/15 के आधार पर कहता ह ूँ कक रेलवे ने हमें माल कम ट्रदया था । रेलवे द्वारा 1024 मीट्रिक टन माल कम ट्रदया गया है यह िात Exh.R/15 में A से B स्थान पर ललखी है ।” 9.

Whereas the Respondent has produced evidence of Sh.

Vinod Sharma S/o Sh.

Pursottamdas, Chief Goods Supervisor at Martyr Captain Tushar Mahajan (earstwhile Udhampur) Railway station, as RW/1.

The Respondent has proved on record certified documents i.e.

CRR report of RR and Details of how many bags and how much goods came in each wagons at Exh.R/1 to R/14, Certificate issued by Station Supdt.- Udhampur, N.R. regarding RR No.

262006126 at Exh.

26 at Exh.R/15, Wagon transfer register at Exh.R/16, Unloading Register at Exh.R/17, Railway Receipts at Exh.R/18, OA(I)/ADI/2019/0001 Page 10 Production cum Seizure Memo at Exh.R/19 and Notice u/s 91 of CrPC by CBI at Exh.R/20.

The witness was cross examined as under: “जि का यह consignment का केस है उस समय मैं Chief Goods Supervisor (CGS) के पद पर या ककसी भी स्थान - कांडला, ऊधमपुर, श्रीनगर में ककसी भी स्थान पर पदस्थावपत नहीं था। यह ठीक है कक मुझे कोई तनजी व्यक्क्तगत जानकारी लोडडंग या unloading व इस consignment के िारे में नहीं है। यह िात ठीक है कक material जोकक consignment में ललखा है, यट्रद समय पर न पहुंिे तो खराि होने की संभावना है। रेल्वे रेकॉर्डटस के अनुसार सारा consignment out-agency के माध्यम से ऊधमपुर स्टेशन पर दे ट्रदया गया पर मुझे इस िारे में तनजी जानकारी नहीं है कक उस out-agency ने वह consignment को श्रीनगर भेजा या नहीं। प्रश्न: जो रेकॉडट आज आपने पेश ककया है उसके आधार पर क्या सामान की delivery श्रीनगर हो गयी या नहीं? उत्तर: हमे कोई भी missing या non-delivery of consignment, की लशकायत, ऊधमपुर को नहीं लमली थी। प्रश्न: क्या आपने Exh.A/5, अपना शपथपत्र िनाने से पहले देख ललया था? उत्तर: जी हाूँ, देख ललया था। यह ठीक है कक हमने IFFCO को सीधे कोई material handover नहीं ककया था, हमने तो रेल्वे के out-agency को माल सौपा था। यह िात ठीक है कक CBI ने मामला Manoj Ji & Company के र्खलाफ पंजीकृत ककया है तथा उसमे IFFCO कंपनी को दोर्ी नहीं िनाया है। यह ठीक है कक Exh.R/18, के तहत कांडला से श्रीनगर तक material की transportation की क्ज़म्मेदारी रेल प्रशासन की थी। out-agency को ऊधमपुर से श्रीनगर तक transportation के Freight पेमेंट का क्जक्र मेरे रेकॉडट में नहीं है, इसललए मैं यह नहीं कह सकता ह ूँ, पेमेंट हुआ है या नहीं। क्योंकक हमे shortage या non-delivery का कोई नोट्रटस नहीं आया है, इसललए मैं यह नहीं कह सकता ह ूँ कक यह दावा क्यों फ़ाइल हुआ है। Exh.A/6 और Exh.A/7 के िारे में मैं कुछ नहीं कह सकता ह ूँ क्योंकक यह मेरी जानकारी में नहीं है।” 10. ं है।” 10.

At the time of oral arguments both the parties argued as under: “Counsel for Applicant submitted that it is a case of short delivery/non-delivery of goods, entrusted to the Railway for transportation and in its written statement Railway has taken only one ground that Railway cannot be held liable and liability should be of out agency and Railway has admitted consignment and entrustment of goods as such this OA may be allowed.

As per sec.

232 (b) of the Railways Act, 1989, OA can be instituted against Railway administration and the outsource agency being agent of the Railway is not even necessary party to further proceedings.

Although Applicant have impleaded out agency as Respondent no.2 upon objection.

OA(I)/ADI/2019/0001 Page 11 Counsel for the Respondent submitted that Railway has arrangement up to Udhampur only and consignment was to be delivered at Srinagar and before taking goods it was disclosed to the Applicant that the goods would be transported from Udhampur to Srinagar through out-agency and it was the duty of the out-agency to transport goods from Udhampur to Srinagar within knowledge of the Applicant so, Railways cannot be liable.

She further submitted that goods were of perishable nature as per claim but Applicant initiated process only after 5/6 month so by its acting conduct Applicant is not entitled to any relief in this case.

In rebuttal counsel for the Applicant submitted that Applicant have initiated process within time as per sec.

106 of the Railways Act, 1989.” FINDINGS 11.

We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, material made available on record; evidence adduced by them and heard the arguments advanced on behalf of rival parties by their counsel.

Our findings on the aforesaid issues are as under: Regarding Issue No.

3: 12.

This is issue has become redundant because ultimately upon objection of Respondent Railway, the Applicant impleaded Manoj Ji & Company as Respondent No.

3. ent No.

So, this issue has become redundant and as such issue has put at rest.

Regarding Issue No.

4: For adjudication this issue let us read section 93 of the Railways Act, 1989.

13.

Section 93 is read as under: 93.

General responsibility of a railway administration as carrier of goods.— Save as otherwise provided in this Act, a railway administration shall be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration in transit, or non- delivery of any consignment, arising from any cause except the following, namely:— (a) act of God; (b) act of war; (c) act of public enemies; (d) arrest, restraint or seizure under legal process; OA(I)/ADI/2019/0001 Page 12 (e) orders or restrictions imposed by the Central Government or a State Government or by an officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government or a State Government authorised by it in this behalf; (f) act or omission or negligence of the consignor or the consignee or the endorsee or the agent or servant of the consignor or the consignee or the endorsee; (g) natural deterioration or wastage in bulk or weight due to inherent defect, quality or vice of the goods; (h) latent defects; (i) fire, explosion or any unforeseen risk: Provided that even where such loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non- delivery is proved to have arisen from any one or more of the aforesaid causes, the railway administration shall not be relieved of its responsibility for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery unless the railway administration further proves that it has used reasonable foresight and care in the carriage of the goods.” 14.

It is the simple case of Applicant that they booked total 1024 metric ton fertilizer as consignor to self to be delivered at Srinagar and up to Udhampur goods were to be transported in rail Wagons upto Udhampur and from Udhampur to Srinagar goods were to be transported by Railway through its out agency for delivery of goods at the Godown of Applicant company b company by road transport.

It is case of Railway that goods were handed over to the out agency at the behest of company and at Udhampur so Railway has denied its liability.

How and under what circumstances Railway has invoked protection under section 93 of the Railways act 1989 has not been explained by the Respondent.

There was no flood nor act of God, nor there was any fire explosion or unfore seen risk, natural deterioration or wastage in bulk due to inherent defect, quality or vice of goods.

It is a case of short delivery, it is not the case of Railway that goods were hydroscopic so they vanished or damaged to such an extent that delivery was not possible.

15.

In fact, Railway has entered in agreement with its out agency that in case of non- delivery or short delivery of goods entrusted to the out agency, the out agency would be responsible for the same.

Once Railway has entered into such agreement with the out agency, Railway has covered all unfore seen risk.

Further any contract between OA(I)/ADI/2019/0001 Page 13 Railway and out agency would not be binding upon the Applicant, as the Applicant was not party or signatory of such agreement.

If this Tribunal comes to conclusion that if Railway is liable for short delivery, Railway would be able to invoke its agreement for out agency and recover the amount from its out agency to enforce said contract in accordance with law.

16.

The out agency is also a party before us and has failed to counter in an effective and proper manner.

Even out agency has facilitated as ex-parte proceeding on 07.10.2022 as if it has nothing to say against the claim of the Applicant.

So, under these given circumstances we are of the considered opinion that Railway cannot claim protection of section 93 of the Act under given circumstances.

Hence, the issue is decided in favour of Applicant and against the Respondent.

No observation made above will have any bearings on the merits of the case.

Issue No.

1 and 2: Both the issues are being taken up together as they interconnected.

Our findings on the issues are as under: 17.

The Applicant has proved on record Railway Receipt at Exh.A/1 and also upon direction of Tribunal has placed on record Forwarding Notes at Exh.A/23 dated 23.03.2017 for 58 wagons.

So, practically the Railway has admitted delivery contract with the Applicant and has further admitted that the Applicant entrusted goods to the Railway for Transport from IFFCO siding to Srinagar and up to Udhampur Railway station transported the goods in its wagon and from Udhampur it was to be transported by the out-agency company of Railway through road transport.

So, the contract was to deliver the goods to Applicant at Srinagar.

There is no dispute about payment of freight between the parties.

If we go by the pleadings made in the OA, practically Respondent has admitted short delivery but contention of Respondent about difference in quantity as pleaded in the Written Statement would not have any bearings on the merits of this case because practically Respondent has admitted missing quantity but at higher side, OA(I)/ADI/2019/0001 Page 14 whereas the Applicant has preferred this OA for smaller quantity.

If by one reason or other in its own wisdom the Applicant has not filed claim for higher missing quantity that would not absolve Railway from its liability to explain whether it has delivered the quantity claimed in the OA though it is on lower side.

At the most we can say that the Applicant has for go and relinquished its rights for higher shortage quantity.

But on that ground the Applicant cannot be non-suited.

It was the duty of the Respondent to deliver entire booked goods at the destination with safety under same condition as were entrusted to it.

18.

The Respondent has pleaded that it has given delivery of entire goods to the out agency at Udhampur and has tried evade of its liability. liability.

We have carefully gone through the documents on record and Railway has tried to say that on delivery of goods to M/s.

Manoj Ji & company, the Railway gave delivery as per mandate in Forwarding Note & RR and has relieved from its liabilities.

Let us refer documents on record in this respect, the main feature of documents are as under: (i) Forwarding Note Exh.A/23 of dated 23.03.2017 Name of consignor Name of consignee Weight of consignment IFFCO-Kandla IFFCO-Srinagar (J&K) 372209 kg. (ii) Railway receipt Exh.A/1: Name of consignor Name of Out Agency Weight of consignment IFFCO-Kandla IFFCO-Srinagar (J&K) 3944MT (iii) Main feature of Agreement form for Out Agency as under: “This agreement made this day of 15.03.2016 between the President, Union of India acting through the Sr.

Divisional Commercial Manager, Northern Railway, Firozpur. (hereinafter called Railway Administration) of the one part and.

M/S Manoj Ji & Company Pvt.

Limited a company registered and formed under the Indian Companies Act 1913, having its registered office at B-4/94, Ashok Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi (hereinafter called the contactors) of the other part.

OA(I)/ADI/2019/0001 Page 15 In respect of the City Booking Agency / Out Agency of Northern Railway at Srinagar served via Udhampur Railway Station.

Whereas the Railway Administration has established a Out Agency at Srinagar served via Udhampur Railway Station for the purpose of local and through booking of Goods in full wagon load and rake load both outward and inward (except- Live stock, coal and goods in bulk or loose, dangerous and explosive goods as laid down in the Railways Red Traffic, arms and ammunitions, offensive goods and excepted articles) between the said Out Agency and all stations on the Northern Railway and other connected Railways and City Booking Agencies/ Out agencies with which the Northern Railway has or may hereinafter have through booking arrangements, of Goods between the Out Agency and Udhamapur Railway Station, on tation, only by a special arrangement, the Railway may permit booking of the Goods in Bulk, or loose, dangerous and explosive etc. and whereas the Contractors have agreed to serve the Railway Administration in the capacity of agent for the above purpose and to engage honestly and faithfully to perform all duties incidental to the offices of such agents on the terms and conditions hereinafter appearing in this agreement.” 19.

The agreement executed between Railway and Manoj Ji and company as city Booking Agency of Northern Railway Srinagar via Udhampur for the purpose of local and through booking of goods and Manoj Ji & Company being contractor had agreed to serve Railway administration in the capacity of Agent for the purpose booking of full Wagon load and rack load both outward and inward except coal, loose dangerous & explosive goods.

So, as per said agreement Railway had appointed Manoj Ji & company as its agent.

Once the Railway admitted the company as its agent and the Respondent Railway was required to deliver goods at Srinagar, any delivery of good at Udhampur by no stretch of imagination can be considered as delivery of goods to the Applicant Co-operative Society.

20.

The rule of vicarious liability would come to play in this case and the Railway is not free to push Manoj Ji & Company in the court of the Applicant.

It was the condition of the contract that the Railway would deliver goods at Srinagar.

So, till safe delivery of goods, the Railway would be considered as custodian of the goods, entrusted to it for transportation.

For all acts, omission, over acts, inaction, foul play or deeds of an agent its principle can always be held liable and it is the settled law that privity of contract between principle and agent would not affect rights of third party in any manner.

OA(I)/ADI/2019/0001 Page 16 21.

The mandate given in Forwarding Note and Railway receipt would be complete/complied with only upon delivery of goods at the destination i.e.

Srinagar.

The Applicant nowhere authorised the out agency to receive goods on its behalf, whereas Railway has entered in to agreement of out agency with the company to act on its behalf and also designated said company as its agent.

Further Railway has itself placed on record report of Investigation as Exh.R/20 submitted before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Srinagar under section 173 of CRPC.

The said report contains recitals regarding matter in issue and as per said report Manoj Ji & Company while acting as Railway out agency for Northern Railway took goods for transportation form Railway head Point Udhampur to delivery at Godown of Applicant in Srinagar and misappropriated 1024 metric ton of fertilizer meant for supply to Farmers and Fruit Grovers of Kashmir division.

The said document so produced by the Railway itself in fact is corroborating the averments made in the OA.

The Railway is bound by said document as it has been produced by it and it can be read against Railways, as such, without any further proof.

The Applicant wrote various representation to the Railway but the Railway ignored and declined such demand on the pretext that it has already delivered goods to the out agency at Udhampur rail head so, it was a good delivery to the Applicant.

22.

Having considered argument from both sides, defence taken and document on record particularly Forwarding Note, Railway receipt, agreement for out agency we are of the considered opinion that delivery of good to the out agency cannot be considered as good and valid delivery to the consignee and there is no evidence that the out agency delivered the goods to the Applicant to its satisfaction.

It was duty of Respondent to produce all such evidence on record about delivery.

There is no document on record that the Railway had delivered entire load of all the Wagons to the Applicant at Srinagar.

Rather somehow in a disguised manner Railway has tried to question validity of this claim on the ground that the out agency is admitting non delivery of larger quantity then quantity claimed in the OA.

OA(I)/ADI/2019/0001 Page 17 23.

Under given circumstances we find no legal impediment to hold that there was short delivery of the goods and negligence of Railway cannot be ruled out as it was duty of Railway to keep vigilance and eye over its out agency.

Hence, the issues are decided in favour of Applicant and against the Railways.

5 & 6: 24.

It is the case of Applicant that the Respondent has failed to deliver 1024 metric ton and the Applicant have claimed such amount from the Railway.

As per Exh.A/1 i.e.

RR, the goods were entrusted to the Railway for transportation at Railway Risk rate.

So, there would be additional enhanced responsibility of Railway as a transporter.

There is no record or evidence which shows that there was any short coming flaw in packing of material which was brought on Railway Risk rate.

The Responded has failed to rebut genuineness of said claim even at the time of arguments, the Applicant have proved on record Railway receipt and invoices etc. and delay in initiating its process would not affect merits of claim made in OA as the Applicant has initiated legal remedy within prescribed period of limitation.

The Applicant is entitled to amount of Rs.

2,07,05,278/- as compensation along with interest as per calculation shown as under: 1024 MT X Product Rate 20019.80 = 2,05,00,275.20/- Plus 1% Excise Duty paid by IFFCO = 2,05,002.75/- ----------------------------------- Total compensation amount = Rs.

2,07,05,278/- 25.

However, in case the Respondent Railways pays the amount to the Applicant, the Respondent would be able to recover all amount from Respondent No.

3 in accordance with law.

So, this issue is decided in favour of the Applicant and against Respondent No.

1 and 2. .

1 and 2.

Accordingly, we pass the following order: ORDER OA(I)/ADI/2019/0001 Page 18 26.

In view of the claim is allowed.

Respondent No.

1 and 2 shall pay to the Applicant a sum of Rs.

2,07,05,278/- as compensation within 30 days from the date of this order.

The awarded sum will carry simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the cause of action i.e.

23.07.2017 till the date of this order.

If the Respondents fails to pay the amount within above stipulated time (30days), the awarded sum will carry simple interest @ 8% per annum from the date of cause of action till the date of realization.

The liability of Respondent No.

1 and 2 be joint and several.

27.

The Respondent Railways are directed to deposit the whole amount along with interest with the Registry of RCT/Ahmedabad within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.

Further the Respondent is directed to place the proof of the awarded amount on record with up-to-date interest along with the calculation sheet.

1 and 2 would be able to recover the amount paid to the Applicant along with interest from Respondent No.3 by initiating appropriate legal proceedings in accordance with law.

28.

In terms of the above, the present claim application is disposed of.

Let this case file be consigned to the Records Room.

No order as to costs. [R.K.

Manocha] [Vinay Goel] Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) Judgment pronounced and signed in open court today i.e. on 04.04.2024.

Place : Ahmedabad Date : 04.04.2024. [R.K.

Manocha] [Vinay Goel] Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)