IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 MFA.No. 590 of 2003(E) ---------------------- OA.71/1999 of RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT: APPLICANT -------------------- TEJAS VASTRALAYA, REPRESENTED BY K.M.ASHRAF, PARTNER, TEJAS VASTRALAYA MAIN ROAD - PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN ADV. SRI. K.G. HARISH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT -------------------------------- UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, MADRAS. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU,SR.SC.RAILWAYS FOR R1 SRI.JAMES KURIAN, SC, RAILWAYS FOR R THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.F.A.NO. 590 OF 2003 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.A.71/99 whereby the Tribunal has passed an award for realisation of an amount of Rs.2,250/- with 6% interest. Dissatisfied with the award amount the applicant before the Tribunal has come up in appeal. It is the case of the applicant that as per his request Variety Centre, a Textile Company in Mumbai had sent two bundles of cloth articles to the applicant in the Kurla - Mangalore train and only one such bundle was delivered and the other was not delivered. So it has filed an application claiming a sum of Rs.33,825/- with 15% interest as value of the articles not delivered. There is no dispute regarding the non-delivery of one bundle. There is no document available before the Tribunal to show that the person who had booked the consignment has declared the value of the consignment. MFA 590 of 2003 -2- The Tribunal referred to R1 which is a forwarding note and Parcel Way Bill which also does not reveal the value of the articles booked. The claims Tribunal relying upon S.103 of the Railway Act as well as Rule 3 of the Railways(Extent of Monetary Liability and Prescription of Percentage Charge) Rules, 1990 came to a conclusion that in the absence of declaring the value of the consignment the parties are only entitled to claim damages for the weight carried and as per Rule 3, the per kilogram rate is only Rs.50/- and therefore for 45 kgs. of the parcel Rs.2,250/- is the amount which the applicant is entitled to get when absolutely no materials are forthcoming from the side of the claimant to establish the factum of showing the value of the consignment on any of the records. 2. A perusal of the memorandum of appeal refers to S.93 of the Railway Act. S.93 of the Railways Act only deal with the situation under which Railway can be made liable. Admittedly, when a package or bundle is booked and it is lost in transit necessarily railway is liable to compensate. There is MFA 590 of 2003 -3- no dispute regarding that proposition and what the Tribunal has done is that as per S.103 of the Railways Act the entitlement is only for the luggage weight and disposed of the case. S.93 under any circumstances would not help the Tribunal or any authority to fix the quantum. The claim must be on the basis if value is shown at the time of booking or as per the provisions u/s 103 when no value is shown. As no value is shown it goes without saying the amount has to be awarded only u/s 103 r/w the Rules. Precisely that is what has been done by the Tribunal. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the Tribunal in arriving at that decision and therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- MFA 590 of 2003 -4- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = M.F.A. No. 590 OF 2003 = = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T 18th September, 2008.