FA/4701/1996 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 4701 of 1996 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= LAXMI CERAMIC INDUSTRIES - Appellant(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA & 1 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PN BAVISHI for Appellant(s) : 1, MR RAMNANDAN SINGH for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 01/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0. When the matter is called on for hearing, Mr. Bavishi, learned counsel for the appellant is not present. Even on earlier occasion, he was not present. FA/4701/1996 2/4 JUDGMENT 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9th August, 1996 passed by the learned Members of the Railway Claims Tribunal, in Claim Petition No. 907 of 1989. 2.1. The short facts of the case are :- 2.2. The appellant is a registered partnership firm carrying on business of manufacturing fire bricks and aluminum retractors, at Morbi. Though the appellant had ordered two wagons of steam coal from the respondents, the same could be delivered. Therefore, the appellant had to purchase the goods from the open market. The appellant issued notice and thereafter filed Civil Suit being Claim Application No. 907 of 1989 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (SD), Surendranagar for grant of compensation. 2.3. The learned trial Judge, after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, partly allowed the application and directed the respondent to pay Rs.4,025/- towards compensation with running interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the suit till realization. 2.4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount FA/4701/1996 3/4 JUDGMENT of compensation, the appellant has, therefore, approached this Court by way of this appeal. 3.0. Heard Mr. Ramnandan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. Having perused the evidence on record, it transpires that for the actual loss caused to the appellant for non-delivery of goods, the respondents had deposited Rs.32,039/- before the Civil Court, Surendrangar on 10.07.1987 and the same has been withdrawn by the appellant on 04.04.1988. However, in view of the provisions of Section 78(d) of the Railways Act, an owner of the goods is not entitled to claim indirect remote or consequential damage or for loss of particular market, whether it is due to late delivery or otherwise. 4.0. As per the provisions of the Railways Act, the respondent is not liable to pay compensation for the loss at particular market rate. However, the respondent had already paid the amount of Rs.32,039/- to the appellant for non-delivery of goods, and which had been withdrawn by the appellants on 4th April, 1988. Thus, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned award. 5.0. In view of the above, in my opinion, the FA/4701/1996 4/4 JUDGMENT impugned award passed by the learned trial Judge is just and proper and no interference is required by this Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/