1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.302 OF 1996 Union of India through the General Manager of Central Railway, Bombay, V.T. ...Appellants (Org.Respondents) V/s. M/s. Shahabad Stone Co., Pune ...Respondents (Org.Applicants) .... Mr.A.N.Samant, Advocate, for the appellant-Union Bank of India. .... CORAM : J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 8th September, 2009. P.C. 1. This appeal is directed against the award of compensation of Rs.3,513.75 with interest @Rs.12% per annum from the date of application till realisation of the amount. 2. The respondent/claimant had loaded rough flooring stones in a goods train from railway station, Shahabad and the goods were to be transported and delivered to the claimant at Pune Goods Shed. On 20th August 1990, the wagon no. SC 2303 was offered to the respondent/claimant for delivery 2 of the goods. At that time, the claimant s agent noted that the stones loaded in the wagon were in broken condition. The claimant made the application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bombay, claiming total compensation of Rs.8,500/- including the value of the damaged stones, incidental expenses and the notice expenses. The claim was contested on behalf of the railways on several grounds and contended that the claimant himself was negligent in the matter as he had not taken necessary precaution before the transhipment of the consignment and that the packing condition was not satisfactory resulting into breakage of the stones. 3. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Bombay rejected the contention of the Railways that there was any negligence on part of the claimant in packing the goods while loading on the wagon. It was held that the damage was caused to the stones by the railways, for which there was no feasible explanation and in the result, the railways were held responsible to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3513.75. 3 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the record and proceedings as well as the impugned Judgment. 5. The Tribunal noted that as per the Bill Exh.A2, the consignment consisted of 740 stones which were purchased @ Rs.375/- per 100 pieces as well as 380 stones which were purchased @ Rs.500/- per 100 pieces. It was noted that, 172 stones of the size 2 x 1 1/2  and 137 stones of the size 2 x 2 were delivered in slightly damaged condition and the price of those stones could be Rs.1330/-. 158 stones of the size 2 x 1 1/2 and 87 stones of size 2 x 2 were delivered in broken condition and there value was Rs.1,027.50. The Tribunal noted that the railways were prepared to pay compensation @ 50% of the value of the stones delivered in the slightly damaged condition and 90% of the value of the stones delivered in broken condition. In view of this offer, which was accepted by the Tribunal, 50% of the cost price of the stones delivered in slightly damaged condition would be Rs.665/- and 90% cost price to the stones, which were delivered in broken 4 condition, would be Rs.924.75. Thus, as per the offer made by the railway, they were willing to pay damages of Rs.1589.75 towards the cost of the stones. As per the Bill Exh.A2, the claimant had paid Rs.135/- as other expenses relating to the consignment. The proportionate expenses in respect of stones which were slightly damaged and were in broken condition were worked out at Rs. 72/-. The total of these two items was Rs. 1796.75. The learned counsel for the appellant has no objection to the same. 6. The learned counsel objects to the grant of compensation of Rs.1852/-, being proportionate freight charges on the ground that the claimant had not made any claim towards the freight charges. The Tribunal observed that for the total consignment, the claimant had paid Rs.3513.75 as freight charges and proportionate freight charges in respect of a slightly damaged and broken stones as per their price worked out to Rs. 1852/-. It is true that in the claim petition, there was no mention of the claim on account of freight charges. However, it should be noted 5 that in the claim petition, the claimant had made total claim of Rs.8500/- inclusive of the cost of the stones, incidental expenses and notice expenses. However, the Claims Tribunal had minutely considered the damage and in fact, granted compensation towards the value of the slightly damaged and broken stones at 50% to 90% of the cost price as per the offer made by the appellant. If the stones were damaged and the railways also accepted that they were liable to pay 50% or 90% of the cost, it was but natural that the proportionate freight paid by the claimant to the railways for transportation for the said goods should also to be paid as compensation. The learned counsel for the railways, contended that it was necessary to make a separate claim for the freight and for this purpose, he relies on Section 13 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. 7. Section 13 reads as under : 13. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal.--(l) The Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that day 6 by any civil court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act-- (a) relating to the responsibility of the railway administrations as carriers under Chapter-VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for- (i) compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway; (ii) compensation payable under section 82A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder; and (b) in respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration to be carried by railway. 1[(1A) ....... (2) The provisions of the 2[Railways Act 1989 (24 of 1989)1 and the rules made thereunder shall, so far as may be, be applicable to the inquiring into or determining, any claims by the Claims Tribunal under this Act. On perusal of this Sub-section, it could be only said that the Claims Tribunal shall exercise the jurisdiction, power or authority in respect of the claims mentioned in clauses (a) and (b). 7 Clause (a) includes the compensation for loss, destruction and deterioration or non delivery of animals or goods endorsed to railway administration for carriage out by railways as well as the compensation payable under Section 82(1) of the Railways Act, 1989. Clause (b) deals with the claims for refund of fares or for refund of freights. In my considered opinion, this only deals with the jurisdiction which could be exercised by the Claims Tribunal but it does not specifically states that the refund of freight cannot be granted unless it is specifically claimed in the claim application. It is true that the claimant has to specify the claims which he makes and on that basis, compensation has to be decided. Purpose is that the railways should also get an opportunity to defend the claim effectively. 8. It is true that in the present Claims Petition, there were no specific mention of the refund of freight. However, the details of the damage suffered by him were given. There was no dispute that the claimant had loaded the goods in a wagon 8 of the railway at Shahabad Station and same were to be delivered at Pune Goods Shed. The consignment of the goods so shown in the bill, price of the same declared in the bill and all the other incidental charges were not in dispute. There could not be any dispute that he had also paid the freight for the transportation of all the goods and Claims Tribunal has noted that he had paid Rs.3,744/- as freight charges. If he was entitled to receive cost of the goods due to damage or breaking of stones, naturally he would also be entitled to claim refund of the freight to the extent, the goods were damaged. If only cost of damaged goods is paid but the freight charged by railway for those goods are not refunded, the claimant would not be fully compensated and he would be put to loss to the extent freight, for which he was not at fault. Taking into consideration, this aspect the Claims Tribunal awarded refund of Rs.1,852/- towards the freight. There is noting on record to show that the claimants had not paid the amount of Rs. 3,744/- towards freight on the goods to be 9 transported. The amount of Rs.1,852/- was assessed on the basis of the value of the damaged and the broken stones as accepted by railways. The calculation made by the Claims Tribunal was minute and scientific. In my considered opinion, the objection to the refund on freight on such damaged and broken goods is hyper technical. Therefore, I find no substance in this contention. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent also contended that the future interest @ Rs.12% per annum was to the higher side. For this, he relied upon the Maharashtra State Electricity Board V/s. Union Of India, 2005(1) Mh.L.J.165. In that case, the learned Single Judge of this Court had awarded future interest @ Rs.9% per annum on the ground that during the year 1991 when the claim application was filed, granting interest on deposits was given @ Rs.9% per annum. In the present case, the Claims Tribunal awarded the interest @ 12% per annum. Difference is of hardly 3% between the interest granted by the Claims Tribunal and granted by this Court in the 10 Maharashtra State Electricity Board V/s. Union Of India. With due respect, in my opinion, the claimant was a Businessman. He had purchased the goods for running the business and on sale of the goods, naturally that amount would be used back in the business. There is no reason to presume that he would keep the amount as fixed deposits with some nationalised bank just to earn interest @ of 9% p.a. Even if the nationalised banks were giving interest @ 9% on the fixed deposits, it is also common knowledge that during that period, the banks were charging interest from 12% to 15% p.a. on the loans and particularly on the business loans advanced by the Banks. In such circumstances, I find no fault with the grant of interest @ 12% per annum by the Claims Tribunal. 10.For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the appeal. In the result, appeal stands dismissed. As none appears for the respondents at the time of final hearing, no order as to costs in appeal. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)