IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 MFA.No. 158 of 2004() ------------------------------ OA.12/2003 of RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT: ----------------------------------- A.S. BASHEER, PUDUMA TEXTILES, PUDUSSERY, PALAKKAD-7. BY ADV. MR.K.A.ABDUL SALAM SMT.K.A.THANU MOL RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY, KOLKATHA. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,SR.SC, RAILWAYS. THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.FA.NO.158 OF 2004 ............................................. Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Railway Claims Tribunal in O.A.No.12/2003. The petition is filed seeking compensation for an amount of Rs.92,000/= for the alleged short delivery of the consignment the claimant booked from Howrah railway station to Palakkad junction. He had booked a consignment containing ready made garments packed in 7 bundles , weighing 580 kgs at Howrach railway station. Only 4 bundles were delivered and there was a short delivery of 3 bundles. It is towards the price of the materials which was not delivered, an amount of Rs.92,000/= had been claimed. The railway would defend the case on the ground that the applicant had not disclosed the value of the materials as contemplated under Section 103(1) of the Railways Act and therefore he is entitled to get compensation as per Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Railways (Extent of Monetary Liability and prescription of percentage charge) Rules, 1990. The Tribunal therefore : 2 : M.FA.NO.158 OF 2004 calculated the amount and awarded a compensation of Rs.12,600/=. It is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Actually what has to be considered in this appeal is the legal question regarding the impact of Section 103 and Section 3(1)(iii) of Railways (Extent of Monetary Liability and prescription of percentage charge) Rules, 1990. 3. The learned counsel would contend that his client had booked a parcel from Howrah and he was not aware of the things. His contention is that the Railway had suppressed the value disclosed by him. It has to be borne in mind that when a person books a parcel for delivery and charges are paid by him, the original of the receipt would be handed over to him and it will contain the particulars that has been furnished for booking those parcels. Therefore the argument that the railway authorities had willfully suppressed the value of the materials can be easily disproved by producing the original document. None of them had been produced. Now what is attempted is to substitute the case by adducing evidence in the matter just like oral : 3 : M.FA.NO.158 OF 2004 evidence as well as documentary evidence to establish that ready made materials were purchased from Howrach for such and such consideration and therefore he has to be adequately compensated. As stated by me earlier the position depends upon Section 103(1). Section 103(1) reads as follows: "Where any consignment is entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway and the value of such consignment has not been declared as required under sub-section (2) by consignor, the amount of liability of the railway administration loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non- delivery of the consignment shall in no case exceed such amount calculated with reference to the weight of the consignment as may be prescribed etc etc." " Section 103 (2) deals and states that when the value is declared the damages shall not exceed the value so declared". 4. From the materials available, there is nothing to show that the value has been declared. When the value has not been declared, the provison that will straight away has to be applied is Section 3(1)(iii) of Railways (Extent of Monetary Liability and prescription of percentage charge) Rules, 1990 which shows that in cases of parcels other than described in : 4 : M.FA.NO.158 OF 2004 Rules 1 and 2, Rule 3 will apply. In this case Rule 3 will apply and applying that Rule 3 the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.12,600/-. So, a perusal of Section 103 of the Railways Act makes it incumbent upon the party to declare the value under Section 103(2). But if he does not choose to declare, Section 103 will come into play and Section 103(1) is regulated under Section 3(1)(iii) referred to above. Therefore, I cannot hold that the Tribunal has erred in arriving at the quantum to be awarded and therefore the award does not call for interference and hence the appeal is dismissed but without costs. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl