ash 1 fa-662.94 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.662 OF 1994 M/s. Diwanchand Tarachand & Co. .. Appellants Vs The Union of India. .. Respondent -- Shri G.J. Mohan Rao for the Appellants. Shri A.N. Samant for the Respondent. -- CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 1ST AUGUST, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. The challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment and order dated 16th March, 1993 passed by the Learned Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal on a Claim Application made by the Appellants. 3. Initially, the Appellants filed a Civil Suit in the Court of Small Causes against the Respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,040/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The case made out by the Appellants was that they are carrying on business of Merchants and Commission Agents. It is alleged that the Appellants have business ash 2 fa-662.94 relations and running accounts with the consignors who have been paid valuable consideration against the goods sold and supplied by them to the Appellants. The claim relates to a consignment of 510 boxes of wheat which was entrusted on 30th May, 1986 by the Consignor to the Railway Administration for safe carriage and timely delivery. The station of dispatch is Mansa and the consignment was to be delivered at Wadi Bunder at Mumbai. Reliance is placed by the Railway Receipt containing on the particulars of consignment. 4. The consignment was brought to the destination in a damaged condition. A damage was assessed on 5th July, 1986. The case of the Appellants is that the Railway Receipt was endorsed by the Consignors for valuable consideration and, therefore, they had become the owners of the consignment. It is alleged that the Appellants as the Consignees of the goods paid the freight charges to the Respondent- Railway Administration. Therefore, a claim was lodged under Section 78(b) of the Indian Railways Act, 1910. As the amount was not paid, a suit was filed for recovery of the aforesaid amount. On the establishment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, the suit was transferred to the Railway Claims Tribunal. The Respondent filed a written statement for contesting the claim. The Respondent has put the Appellants to the strict proof to the title of the goods which were damaged. The Tribunal framed various issues. Issue No.2 reads ash 3 fa-662.94 thus:- “Do the Applicant prove that they are the owners of the goods? 5. The said issue was answered against the Appellants and, therefore, the claim of the Appellants was dismissed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that the invoices in the sum of Rs.90,480/- being the cost of the consignment was raised by M/s. Daya Ram Brij Lal, the Consignor and the said documents were produced on record. He placed reliance on a certificate dated 12th June, 1993 issued by the State Bank of Indore by which it was certified that the sum of Rs.18,00,000/- was remitted by way of telegraphic transfer in the credit of M/s. Daya Ram Brij Lal on 26th May, 1986 by the Appellants. He submitted that these two documents on record proved the case of ownership of the goods forming part of consignment in favour of the Appellants and, therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent supported the impugned judgment and order. 7. The first issue to be considered is whether the appellants prove that the ownership of the goods forming part of the consignment was transferred to them. On the Railway Receipt on record, the name ash 4 fa-662.94 of the Consignor and Consignee is shown as M/s. Daya Ram Brij Lal. The Railway Receipt authorised one Divanchand Tarachand to take delivery of goods. According to the case of Appellant, the payment of Rs.90,480/- was made by the Appellants to the Consignor. However, as rightly held by the Tribunal that there is no evidence on to show that the Appellants paid the amount of Rs.90,480.60 ps. to M/s. Daya Ram Brij Lal. The Appellants did not examine any representative of M/s. Daya Ram Brij Lal to prove the said payment. Therefore, there is a finding recorded by the Tribunal that the payment of Rs.90,480.60 ps. was not proved by the Appellants. 8. The Appellants are placing reliance on the certificate dated 12th June, 1993 issued by the State Bank of Indore. The said certificate has been issued after the impugned order was passed and there is no application made by the Appellants for leading additional evidence. Thus, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellants failed to prove that they are the owners of the goods subject matter of the consignment. Hence, no case for interference is made out. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( A.S. OKA, J )