THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A. No.322 of 2007 Date: 11th March, 2011 Between: M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Chennai … Appellant A n d Union of India represented by General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A. No.322 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against order dated 12-01-2007 passed in O.A.No.23 of 2004 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. The appellant herein is the applicant and the respondent herein is the respondent in the O.A. They will be referred to as they are arrayed in the O.A. 2. The facts of the case are:- On 24-10-2000, the applicant-company loaded a quantity of 67,200 litres of Motor Spirit in tank wagon No.WR 907325 at their siding at Gangineni for transportation to Sanathnagar at Hyderabad for which Railway Receipt No.291482 dated 24-10-2000 was issued by the Respondent-Railways. The applicant claimed that upon reaching its destination, Joint Inspection was conducted on 26-10-2000, wherein a shortage of 1000 litres of motor spirit was noticed and the Joint Survey Report signed by the Applicant-Company and the Respondent-Railways showed “loading was not supervised, sealing was not arranged”. The applicant alleges that the shortage of 1000 litres of motor spirit was due to the respondent’s negligence and improper transportation from Gangineni to Sanathnagar depot and the respondent-Railways has to make good the loss sustained by the applicant-company by paying a compensation of Rs.22,054/-. 3. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following points for consideration:- (1) Whether the Applicant is entitled for Rs.22,054/- from the Respondent for the short delivery of motor spirit as claimed for? (2) Whether the alleged shortage was due to short loading at their siding itself as pleaded by the Respondent? 4. On behalf of the applicant, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked; whereas on behalf of respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs. R1 and R2 were marked. 5. The Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that the applicant-company was solely responsible for the loading of motor spirit at their siding without any supervision from the respondent- railways and respondent cannot be made accountable for any subsequent shortage of the motor spirit. Further, in the Joint Survey Report, it was recorded that the master valve test was done and found fit and it was submitted by R.W.1 that there was no leakage of product or interference during transit. The Tribunal also observed that the applicants should have taken their own care to safeguard the motor spirit. 6. Now the point for consideration is whether the respondent- Railways have to make good the loss occurred due to the alleged shortage of motor spirit found in the wagon upon reaching the destination. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the Ex.A-5-Endorsement RR was issued by the Railway authorities which uphold the claim of the applicant with regard to the quantity of motor spirit loaded in the wagon and there is also good evidence that the wagon was sealed properly and therefore respondent-railways got the responsibility of seeing that the loaded motor spirit would be intact and, further Ex.A-1-Joint Survey Report clearly provides that before unloading the wagon, the corresponding seals were checked and then it was found they were tampered with which clearly establishes that during the transit the difference of motor spirit was lost and hence, the respondent-railways is liable to make good the loss. 8. On the other hand, it is the contention of respondent-Railways that as per the documents marked particularly, Ex.A-5, there was no responsibility of the respondent with regard to the question of loading of motor spirit into the wagon and therefore in any case the respondent cannot be held to be responsible for the loss occurred, if any. 9. Here, Ex.A-5 which is the corresponding RR from the respondent-railways contains the following endorsements: “Loading not supervised by the railways. Railway seals not arranged due to non availability of lead. Dips shown are CTCC dips but not actual observed dips.” 10. In view of the above endorsements, it is very categorical that the Railway authorities did not supervise the loading of motor spirit into the wagon. In order to make them responsible, the applicants should have seen that in their presence only the motor spirit was loaded into the wagon and they were liable for it. When no such measures were taken by the applicants, it is to be inferred that the applicant was careless and negligent in taking necessary measures in that behalf. 11. Further, Ex.A-1-Report provides that before the unloading of motor spirit from the wagon, the corresponding seals were checked and found that they were tampered with and even supposing that it happened to be true unless responsibility was cast upon the railway authorities to keep intact, the total quantity of motor spirit claimed by the applicant to be loaded in the wagon, it is difficult to ascertain or conclude as to whether there was any pilferage of motor spirit from the wagon by anybody. And in such a case the respondent cannot be directed to make good any loss of motor spirit. 12. Further, R.W.1 in his evidence clearly deposed that there was no leakage of the product from the wagon and there is no basis to reject his testimony unless there is clear and acceptable evidence of what amount of motor spirit was loaded in the wagon and what amount of motor spirit was actually found at the time of unloading it from the wagon. 13. Further, in the absence of any transit delays or interference or meddling with the wagon enroute, the respondent is not liable for any shortage of the motor spirit and significantly master valve test was conducted and it was found fit as recorded in the joint survey register and R.W.1 clearly stated that there was no leakage of the motor spirit and the shortage was accounted for by the applicants only. 14. Therefore, the applicant has got no case and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The Tribunal has properly examined the matter and there is no reason to interfere with its order. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 11th March, 2011 KSM