1 FA.873.92.doc ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 873 OF 1992 Union of India. ... Appellant Versus M/s. D.A.Abubakar and Ismail. ... Respondent -------- Mr. A.N.Samant for the Appellant. Mr. R.V.Govilkar for the Respondent. -------- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE ON WHICH SUBMISSIONS WERE HEARD : 29 th June, 2011. DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED : 05 th September, 2011. JUDGMENT: 1 By this first appeal, the Appellant – Union of India has taken an exception to the judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal. 2 FA.873.92.doc 2 The Respondent filed a Civil Suit on the Original Side of this Court for recovery of a sum of Rs.57,747.86 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the payment. After amendment was carried out to the plaint, the name of the first Defendant was deleted and the Union of India, through the General Manager, South Eastern Railways, Calcutta and the Union of India, through the General Manager, Central Railways Victoria Terminus, Bombay – 1 were made as the second and the third Defendants respectively. The case made out by the Respondent is that on 8 th January, 1972, one Mr.Chandra Bose came to the shop of the Respondent. He was desirous of purchasing textile goods for export to Bangladesh. On the next day, the said person selected various articles. As per the agreement between the Respondents and the said Chandra, the Respondent dispatched the goods selected by the said person from the Byculla Railway Station at Bombay to Birmitrapura, Near Rourkela in the State of Orissa. The goods were kept in six parcels. Four parcels 3 FA.873.92.doc containing the goods described in the invoice Nos.8269 and 8270 were dispatched under Parcel Way Bill no.040611 dated 10 th January, 1972. The other two parcels containing the goods described under invoice nos. 8280, 7367 and 7368 were dispatched under the Parcel Way Bill no.041451 dated 16 th January, 1972. As per the agreement between the Respondent and the said Mr.Chandra Bose, the Respondent dispatched the railway receipts through their Bankers to the State Bank of India, Rourkela. The railway receipts were endorsed in the name of the State Bank of India, Rourkela with instructions to endorse the same in the name of Ganeshchand and Sons after receiving payment of a sum of Rs. 57,747.86 ps. According to the case of the Respondent, a letter dated 25 th January, 1972 was received from the said Mr.Chandra Bose informing that the Railway receipts and the invoices have been received by the State Bank of India, Rourkela and that he was making the payment shortly. Till the end of February, the Respondent did not receive any communication either from its 4 FA.873.92.doc Banker or from the said Mr.Chandra Bose. Apprehending that if the goods were not cleared, it will attract heavy demurrage, one of the partners of the Respondent went to Rourkela and collected the original railway receipts from the State Bank of India and then visited the Birmitrapura Railway Station for presenting the Railway receipts. He accordingly presented the Railway receipts to the Station Master and demanded delivery of the goods. The Station Master informed the partner of the Respondent that on 28 th January, 1972, on presentation of the original Parcel Way Bills, the goods have been delivered. According to the case of the Respondent, it was realized that the goods were delivered on the basis of the forged Parcel Way Bills. The original Parcel Way Bills produced by the person taking delivery were entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation for carrying out investigation. 3 On 18 th March, 1972, a claim was lodged by the Appellants for payment of a sum of Rs.57,747.86 ps. with interest at 5 FA.873.92.doc the rate of 12% per annum from 9 th March, 1972. A claim was lodged with the Chief Commercial Superintendent of the South Eastern Railways, Calcutta for non-delivery of the goods. As no reply was received, the Respondent through his Advocate issued notice dated 7 th April, 1992 to the Chief Commercial Superintendent of South Central Railways calling upon the Railways to pay damages in the sum of Rs.57,747.86 ps. There was no response to the said notice and therefore, the suit was filed alleging that there was negligence on the part of the Defendants in as much as their employees handed over the goods under forged railway receipts to unauthorized persons. Reliance has been placed on the notice dated 20 th November, 1973 sent by the Advocate for the Respondent under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890. 4 After the transfer of the suit to the Railway Claims Tribunal at Bombay, a joint written statement was filed by the 6 FA.873.92.doc Appellants. The first contention raised therein was that the Tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction. The second contention raised was that the claim against the Union of India through the General Manager of the South Central Railways was not maintainable. It was contented that the suit originally filed against the General Manager of the South Eastern Railways and the General Manager of the Central Railways was not maintainable. In the written statement, it was denied that there was any negligence on the part of the employees of the Railways. 5 Various issues were framed by the Tribunal including the issue of jurisdiction. The issue of jurisdiction was answered by the Tribunal in favour of the Respondent. The Tribunal allowed the claim and directed the opponent in the claim (original defendant) to pay a sum of Rs.57,747/- to the Respondent with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. 7 FA.873.92.doc 6 The present appeal was filed by the Union of India through the General Managers of South Eastern and Central Railways. On this aspect, there is an order passed by this Court on 20 th November, 2008, which reads thus: “1. During the course of arguments, it is noticed that the appellant as described in the cause title of the appeal is: “Union of India, through the General Managers, through South Eastern and Central Railways” creating an impression that there is only one appellant. Perusal of the original proceedings before the tribunal shows that there are two different defendants described as “ The Union of India through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, 1-India, Exchange Place, Calcutta-1” as defendant no.2 and “The General Manager, Central Railway Victoria Terminus, Bombay-1” as defendant no. 3. The Vakalatnama filed in the proceedings before the tribunal, as well as, in the present appeal proceedings is signed by an officer of Central Railways alone. 2. At the beginning of his arguments, Mr.Samant had stated that he has represented all throughout, whether before the Tribunal or before this court, only the Central Railways. This statement was made by him on the basis of the Vakalatnama filed before both the Fora. The question that therefore arises is whether the Appeal should be treated as an Appeal by Central Railways alone or also by South Eastern Railways. 3. Learned Counsel Mr.Govilkar appearing for the respondent, submits that the Central Railways and South Eastern Railways do not have separate legal 8 FA.873.92.doc entity. Therefore, the appeal is required to be treated as an Appeal by Union of India alone. However, looking to the contents of the Vakalatnama filed and cause title of the original proceedings, it is for the appellant to take a specific stand in the matter. Hence, stand over by 3 weeks i.e. to 11th December, 2008 to enable Mr.Samant to file a Civil Application for appropriate reliefs.” 7 Civil Application No.5979 of 2008 was filed by the Appellant. The prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the said application reads thus: “(a) leave may be granted to take the Vakalatnama signed by the Union of India, representing General Manager of the South Eastern Railway Administration on record and to treat the Union of India, as represented by the General manager of the South Eastern Railway Administration, as a party to the Appeal alongwith the Union of India, represented by the General Manager of the Central Railway Administration and to hear the Appeal as an Appeal by both Railway Administrations, one against the ex-parte Decree and other the against Decree on merits and to set aside the impugned order; or in the alternative ; (b) to allow the Appeal filed by the Union of India, represented by the General Manager of the Central Railway Administration which was not responsible for delivery of the goods which had reached the destination place and which were in the custody and control of the South Eastern Railway Administration at Biramitrapura (Orissa);” 9 FA.873.92.doc 8 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant had made detailed submissions. He pointed out that the appeal was filed under an authority of Vakalatnama signed and executed by a Competent Officer of the Central Railway Administration and therefore, the same should be treated as an appeal by the Central Railway Administration against the impugned decree. However, he pointed out that in the Civil Application No.5979 of 2008, a prayer has been made for permission to file Vakalatnama singed by the Union of India representing the General Manager of South Eastern Railway. His submission is that there is an ex-parte decree passed against the Union of India represented by the General Manager of South Eastern Railways without service of notice to the said Railway Administration. His submission is that the Tribunal at Bombay had no jurisdiction to pass any order against the Railway Administration of South Eastern Railways. 9 He submitted that the Railway Administrations cannot be 10 FA.873.92.doc blamed if someone takes possession of the goods on the basis of the fabricated Way Bills and documents. He submitted that in fact the Respondents filed Criminal Complaint against one Ganeshchand alleging cheating and taking delivery of the goods without making any payment. He submitted that the maim grievance appears to be that the person, who obtained possession of the goods, did not make payment to the Respondent and therefore, there was no cause of action available against the Railways. He submitted that on presentation of the original documents, delivery was made by the Railways and even assuming that the case of the Respondent is true, there was no way by which the Railway could be aware that the Parcel Way Bills were fabricated. He submitted that there is absolutely no negligence established against the Railway Administrations. He submitted that the Respondent examined a person having no personal knowledge. He submitted that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 11 FA.873.92.doc 10 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Indian Home Pipe Company Limited [AIR (1981) Bombay 414]. He submitted that the claim could not have been filed against the South Eastern Railway in Mumbai. He submitted that joining both the Railway Administrations was illegal and the Respondent could have proceeded only against one of the Railway Administrations. On merits, he submitted that Mr.Ahmed Ismail, the only witness examined by the Respondent had no personal knowledge. He also invited attention of the Court to the decision of this Court in the case of Union of India Vs. State Trading Corporation Limited [2007 (Supp.) Bom.C.R. 874]. Lastly, he relied upon a decision of this Court dated 6 th May, 2005 in the case of Union of India Vs. M/s. Eknath Khemchand (First Appeal No.1136 of 1992) in support of his contention that even assuming that the claim was established, the liability will be only of the Administration of the Central Railway. 12 FA.873.92.doc 11 The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that the plaint was amended and both the Railways were sued. He pointed out that in fact the Union of India has been made party through the General Manager of South Eastern Railway as well as the General Manager of Central Railway. He submitted that the liability is of the Union of India and not a particular Railway Administration. His submission is that the Appellants ought to have adduced evidence to prove their case that they have acted in bona- fide manner and had delivered goods on the basis of the Railway receipts which were believed to be genuine. He submitted that the concerned person, who was responsible for the delivery of the goods ought to have been examined to show that he acted in bona- fide manner and he had no reason to suspect that the Railway receipts were not genuine. He submitted that in absence of such evidence, the Railway is responsible. He pointed out the finding of the Tribunal is based on the instructions issued from time to time 13 FA.873.92.doc that the delivery should not be given to the person, who was not known to the Railway staff until the Railway receipts were compared with the invoices. If invoices could not be produced, identity of the person producing Railway receipts is required to be established. He submitted that once it is established that delivery of the goods was not bona-fide, the claim for compensation must follow. He submitted that the Tribunal had power to grant interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 12 I have given careful consideration of the submissions. The first issue is in what manner the Railway Administration can be sued. Sub-Section (6) of Section 3 of the Railways Act, 1890 defines Railway Administration, which reads thus: “(6) “railway administration” or “administration” in the case of a railway administered by the Government means the manager of the railway and includes the Government, and, in the case of a railway administered by a railway company, means the railway company ;” Section 80 of the said Act of 1890 reads thus: 14 FA.873.92.doc “[80. Suits for compensation. – A suit for compensation for loss the life of, or personal injury to, a passenger or for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods may be instituted, – (a) if the passenger was, or the animals or goods were, booked from one station to another on the railway of the same railway administration, against that railway administration ; (b) if the passenger was, or the animals or goods were booked through over the railway of two or more railway administrations, against the railway administration from which the passenger obtained his pass or purchased his ticket or to which the animals or goods were delivered for carriage, as the case may be, or against the railway administration on whose railway the destination station lies, or the loss, injury, destruction, damage or deterioration occurred; and, in either case, the suit may be instituted in a court having jurisdiction over the place at which the passenger obtained his pass or purchased his ticket or the animals or goods were delivered for carriage, as the case may be, or over the place in which the destination station lies, or the loss, injury, destruction, damage, or deterioration occurred.]” 13 The phrase “Railway Administration” came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of The State of Kerala Vs. The General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras [(1976) 4 Supreme Court cases 238]. In paragraph Nos.7 to 9, the Apex Court has held thus: 15 FA.873.92.doc “7. The Act no doubt makes provision for the liability of the railway administration, but from that it does not follow that the railway administration is a separate legal entity having a juristic personality capable of being sued as such. The definition of “railway administration” in Section 3(6) of the Act that it would mean the manager of the railway does not warrant the inference that a suit against the railway administration can be brought against the manager of that railway. We have to bear in mind the distinction between the owner of the railway, namely, the Union of India, and the authority which actually runs the railway and to whom duties have been assigned for this purpose by the Act. The manager of the railway under the Act is such authority. When, however, liability is sought to be fastened on the railway administration and a suit is brought against it on that account, the suit, in our opinion, would have to be brought against the Union of India because it is the Union who owns the railway and who would have the funds to satisfy the claim in case decree is awarded in such suit. 8. The scheme of the Act, even though there are now hardly any company-owned railways in India, is to treat different railway administrations as different units, although all of them may be owned by the Union of India. Neither the definition of the “railway administration” in Section 3(6) of the Act nor the language of Sections 72 to 80 of the Act lends support for the view that the railway administrations are to be treated as separate personalities, entities or separate judicial persons as seems to have been observed in the case of Dominion of India v. Firm Museram Kishunprasad1. Yet the treatment of the different railway administrations as different units for the purpose of fastening liability on the Union of India has got significance and relevance. Viewed in that light, it 16 FA.873.92.doc would follow that the definition of the “railway administration” given in Section 3(6) of the Act does not make the railway administration or its General Manager a legal entity or a corporate body or a juridical person to represent the railway administration as such in suits. The claim in a suit for recovery of money under the Act against the different railway administrations owned by the Central Government in accordance with the general principle of law contained in Order 1 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure has got to be made against the person against whom the right to relief is alleged to exist. 9. The significance of creating the various railway administrations as separate units, even though they may be State-owned, is to be found in Section 80 of the Act, and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For claiming a decree against the Union of India under the Act the plaintiff has got to specify the railway administration or administrations on account of which liability is sought to be fastened upon the Union of India, as contemplated by Section 80 of the Act. The institution of the suit has to be preceded by service of notice under Section 77 of the Act and Section 80 of the Code to the appropriate authority which is the General Manager of the railway concerned. The requirement of clause (b) of Section 80 of the Code that a notice in the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to a railway must go to the General Manager of the concerned railway or railways is also based upon the assumption that it is primarily the liability of the railway administration of the said railway or railways to satisfy the claim of the suitor in accordance with Section 80 of the Act. The demarcation of the different State-owned railways as distinct units for administrative and fiscal purposes cannot have the effect of conferring the status of juridical person 17 FA.873.92.doc upon the respective railway administrations or their General Managers for the purpose of civil suits.” (Emphasis added) 14 Thus, the view taken by the Apex Court is that the Railway Administration or its General Manager is not a legal entity or a juridical person which can be sued. It was held that the Union of India owns the Railways and therefore, the suit would have to be brought against the Union of India. The Apex Court in paragraph No.9 clarified that when it was comes to service of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or Section 77 of the said Act of 1890, when the suit is proposed to be filed against the Central Government relating to a particular Railway, the notice must be served to the General Manager of the concerned Railway or Railways. In paragraph No.9 of the decision, the Apex Court reiterated that demarcation of State-owned railways as distinct units for administrative and fiscal purposes cannot have the effect of conferring the status of juridical person upon the respective railway 18 FA.873.92.doc administrations or their General Managers for the purposes of civil suits. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the suit could have been brought by the Respondent only against the Union of India. In fact, the cause title of the amended plaint in the present case shows that the Union of India is shown as Defendant No.2 through the General Manager of the South Eastern Railway and again the Union of India is shown as Defendant No.3 through the General Manager of the Central Railway. However, the fact remains that the Union of India is a party Defendant to the suit filed by the Respondent. 15 As far as the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India Vs. State Trading Corporation Limited (supra) is concerned, the issue was only as regards the authority to which service of statutory notice is required to be made. It also deals with an option given to serve the notice to one of the several Railway Administrations against whom a claim is sought to be made. As far 19 FA.873.92.doc as judgment of this Court dated 6 th May, 2005 in First Appeal No. 1136 of 1992 is concerned, in paragraph No.3, this Court has noted the submissions made on behalf of the Railways, which reads thus: “3. Mr. Samant raised only three contentions. Firstly, according to him the claim was filed by the original claimants against two Railways e.g. in First Appeal No. 786 of 1992 the claim was preferred by the claimants – respondents against General Manager, Central Railway, and General Manager, Southern Railway, and the Tribunal passed an award against both the Railways. Therefore, according to Mr.Samant, there can be liability only of one railway and not both the railways.” In paragraph No.7, the said issue was answered as under: “7. Out of the three submissions made by Mr. Samant, the first and third submissions are required to be accepted and the second submission is required to be rejected. If at all there is liability of the Union of India, then Decree against one of the railways would be proper and sufficient. In many such appeals of the Union of India I have accepted this contention, therefore impugned judgment will have to be maintained against General Manager, Central Railway only and order against other Railways will have to be set aside.” 16 It appears that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of The State of Kerala (supra), which is a binding precedent, 20 FA.873.92.doc was not brought to the notice of this Court while deciding the aforesaid case. There are other decisions of this Court taking similar view. The said decisions cannot be binding precedents in view of the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court. Thus, the decree will have to be passed against the Union of India. For the purposes of service of notice of the claim applications, for convenience, after impleading the Union of India, the cause title may provide that the Union of India is being sued through the General Manager of one of the Railway Administrations. Suffice it to say that if the claimant makes out a case for grant of compensation, the compensation will be payable by the Union of India. Therefore, the contention that in the present case, the compensation is payable only by the Central Railway cannot be accepted. In fact, there