Title: Union of India v. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Decided on: 10th October, 2023
MFA/15/2015
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Parthiv Jyoti Saikia
Introduction
The Gauhati High Court set aside the judgement and order issued by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench on Tuesday on the grounds that the Tribunal had not determined the weight or volume of the goods loaded by the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOC) at the point of origin, which would have made the Railway liable for the short delivery of goods (Superior Kerosene Oil-SKO).
Facts of the Case
For the transportation of SKO from Paradeep to Tinsukia, the respondent reserved 47 BTPN Tank waggons. Under the direction of the railway, the goods were loaded, and goods invoices were created after dip measurements confirmed the quantity loaded. Both the top and bottom goods seals were gone and the oil was leaking when the container was unloaded at the destination station. The respondent found that 25767 litres of SKO were missing. The respondent thus demanded 7,80,521 from the appellant based on the cost per kilolitre.
The appellant refuted the assertion in a written declaration that was submitted. The Tribunal ultimately decided that the appellant Railway was accountable for the delayed delivery of goods. Thus, this is an appeal brought under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act of 1987 against the decision rendered by the knowledgeable Guwahati Bench of the Railway Claims Tribunal.
Courts analysis and decision
The Court remarked, “I find that the learned Tribunal has not decided on the most pertinent question as to what was the weight or volume of the goods loaded by the respondent IOC at the place of origin.”
The Court noted that the railway receipt demonstrates that the cargo was loaded at the respondent’s private siding without the assistance of railway personnel, and that it was “said to contain SKO as per forwarding note.” Further placing reliance on Sreeniwas Basudeo vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2002 (1) GLT 605, the court referred that it has already clarified that the phrase “said to contain” cannot be interpreted as “contained”.
The Court further relied on its own decision in Union of India v. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. MFA/92/2016, where it was decided that Section 65(2) of the Railways Act would be applicable and the respondent would have the burden of proving the weight or volume of the goods at the place of origin.
Thus, the court set aside the judgment passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati and remanded back the matter to the Tribunal to decide the issue as to what was the quantity of goods loaded by the respondent at the place of origin. The Tribunal is directed to pass a fresh judgment on all issues accordingly.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aashi Narayan
