HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.983 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the South Central Railways, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2005 in O.A.No.137 of 1998 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the applicant claiming compensation of Rs.61,279/- for short delivery of 1066 litres of High Speed Diesel, was allowed awarding compensation of Rs.61,279/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. 2. Brief facts relating to the case are that the respondent-applicant dispatched 24430 litres of High Speed Diesel in Tank Wagon No. CR 049695 from Visakhapatnam to Krishna Canal under invoice No.660, RR No.091762 dated 28.01.1993 and that the contents of the said wagon were transhipped into another wagon NO.CR 47974. It is stated that on the arrival of transhipped wagon to the destination on 16.02.1993, dip measurement was taken, which was only 119.0 cms representing 13765 litres of HSD oil as against the dip reading of 211.2 cms representing 24430 litres of HSD oil at the time of booking into the original wagon No.CR 049695. It is further stated that the respondent-applicant issued a notice under Section 78-B to the Railways on 08.04.1993 seeking compensation of Rs.61,279/- with interest at 18% per annum and the same having been rejected by the Railways, the present application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act has been filed before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.61,279/-. 3. The appellant-Railways filed written statement, inter alia, contending that railway receipt was issued on ‘said to contain’ basis and loading was not supervised by the railways, they were not aware of the actual quantity loaded into the said wagon and therefore they are not responsible for the shortage as was noticed at the time of delivery. However, they have conceded that the content of the original tank wagon was transhipped into Tank No. CRTK 47974 on 30.01.1993 due to leakage and that the transhipped wagon arrived at Krishna Canal on 09.02.1993 and that the bottom valve leaking is only due to mechanical defect, but not due to any criminal interference. They have also conceded that the open delivery demand has been granted on 16.02.1993 confirming the dip reading of 119.0 cms against the 211.2 cms at the time of original loading. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial: 1. Whether the subject consignment suffered shortage in transit and while in custody of the railway administration? 2. Whether the Railway administration is not liable for the alleged short delivery? 3. Whether valid notice under Section 106 of I.R. Act was served on the Railway administration? 4. What is the value of the alleged short delivered consignment? 5. Whether the applicant is entitled to interest as claimed? 6. To what relief? 5. During enquiry, on behalf of the applicant, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the Railways. 6. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the application as stated supra. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Railways. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Claims Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the consignment was booked under “L” condition i.e., loading and unloading to be done by the consignor and consignee respectively and since the loading of the consignment was not supervised by the railway staff, railway receipt was issued with the same remarks. He further submits that the railways carried the consignment to the destination with due care and caution and as such they are not responsible for the shortage of High Speed Diesel as was noticed at the time of delivery. 9. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent-applicant submits that the order of the Tribunal is quite legal and valid and in that view of the matter, no interference is called for. 10. It is not in dispute that the original Tank Wagon was loaded with 24430 litres of High Speed Diesel from Visakhapatnam to Krishna Canal and that the contents of said wagon were transhipped into another wagon and that the transshipped wagon was arrived at Krishna Canal on 16.02.1993. It is also not in dispute that immediately after the arrival of transhipped wagon to the destination, dip measurement was taken and it was found only 119.0 cms representing 13765 litres of HSD oil as against the dip reading of 211.2 cms representing 24430 litres of HSD oil at the time of booking into the original wagon. Thus, there was shortage of 1066 litres of High Speed Diesel. Therefore, the Railways have to account for the said shortage of High Speed Diesel. The Tribunal upon considering all these aspects found that since the shortage of High Speed Diesel is due to leakage on account of technical defect and the same has been conceded by the Railways, they are liable for payment of shortage of diesel. 11. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal is quite legal and justified and, therefore, this Court does not find any reason or justification to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 12. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 10-08-2011 Gsn.