THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY C.MA.Nos.2809 of 2002 and 4022 of 2003 Dated:18th January, 2010 Between: 1. General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Calcutta & Ors. …Petitioner (in both CMAs) and The Steel Authority of India Limited, A Government of India Enterprises, rep. by its branch Manager Sri V.Kamalakar, 39, R.K. Beach Road, Visakhapatnam. …Respondent (in both CMAs) *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY C.M.A.Nos.2809 of 2002 and 4022 of 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the common order dated 06.05.1999 passed in O.A.No.665 and 666 of 1993 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. More precisely, C.M.A.No.2809 of 2002 is directed against the order passed in O.A.No.665 of 1993 and C.M.A.No.4022 of 1993 is directed against the order passed in O.A.No.666 of 1993. 2. Since the issue involved in both the C.M.As. is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The respondent herein is the applicant in O.A.Nos.665 and 666 of 1993. The case of the applicant is that a consignment consisting of 57 M.Ts. of angles was booked under R.R.No.183717 on 21.04.1991 from Bhilai Steel Plant to Visakhapatnam. The grievance of the applicant is that there is a shortage at the delivery point. When a request is made to Railway Administration for re-weighment and open delivery, the same came to be turned down. The applicant got the weighment made through an independent surveyor and valued the shortage of the consigned goods at Rs.20,898/-. This is the subject matter in O.A.No.665 of 1993. It is also the case of the applicant that it booked a consignment consisting of 55 M.Ts. of Channels under R.R.No.226035, dated 18.11.1991 from Bhilai Steel Plant to Visakhapatnam. The grievance of the applicant is that there is shortage in the delivery. An amount of Rs.13,429/- has been claimed towards shortage in the consignment. This is the subject matter in O.A.No.666 of 1993. The railway administration filed written statement resisting the claim of the applicants in both the O.As. 4. The Tribunal formulated the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the notice is issued in time and application is filed in time? 2) Whether the applicant could establish that there was shortage? 3) If so, to what relief? 5. The Tribunal, on considering the material brought on record, proceeded to allow the claim of the applicant in both the O.As., by a common order dated 06.05.1999. The said common order is assailed in these C.M.As. 6. Despite notice being served on the respondent in CMA No.4022 of 2003, the respondent did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. Though the respondent entered appearance in CMA No.2809 of 2002, the respondent did not choose to appear either in person or through a counsel when the matter came up for hearing. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the C.M.As and perused the material brought on record. 8. The main point urged on behalf of the appellants is that the Tribunal did not take into account the purport of Section 94 of the Railways Act, 1989. As per said provision, if any consignment is delivered by the railway administration at the siding not belonging to the railway administration, it will not be responsible for any loss, destruction, damage or deterioration or non-delivery of such consignment. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in Union of India v. I.B.P.Co. Ltd.[1] and the judgment dated 17.09.2004 passed in C.M.A.No.2840 of 1999 (The Union of India, rep. by its General Manager, S.C. Railway, Secunderabad v. M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd., Chennai). 9. I n Union of India v. I.B.P.Co. Ltd. (1 supra), the material was unloaded at the siding owned by the respondent. The proposition of law laid down in the cited decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Hence, the common order impugned in both the C.M.As. cannot be sustained. 10. Accordingly, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed setting aside the common order dated 06.05.1999 passed in O.A.Nos.665 and 666 of 1993 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad and consequently, O.A.Nos.665 and 666 of 1993 stand dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:18th January, 2010. CS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY C.M.A.Nos.2809 of 2002 and 4022 of 2003 Dated:18th January, 2010 [1] 2005(2) ALT 596