THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.178 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order in O.A. No.17 of 2002 dated 15-10-2003, whereby the Railway Claims Tribunal Secunderabad awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the respondent herein towards value of the non- delivery of his luggage of garments weighing about 45 Kgs. while travelling from Secunderabad to Allahabad on 01-05-2002, the Union of India, South Central Railway, Secunderabad preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The admitted facts of the case are that while the respondent was travelling from Secunderabad to Allahabad on 01-05-2002, he booked a parcel luggage of wedding garments weighing about 45 Kgs. vide R.R. No.411853 by duly purchasing ticket bearing PNR No.131-7118481, but the said luggage was undelivered to him by the railway authorities at the destination station. He made several visits to Allahabad Railway Station and finally lodged a complaint with the Manager, D.R.M. Office, Allahabad on that he was informed by the railway authorities that his luggage was not unloaded. In the circumstances, respondent purchased garments again at Allahabad and Pratapgard and performed the marriage of his brother. Therefore, he claimed Rs.30,000/- towards value of the consignment, Rs.45,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, Rs.15,000/- for compensation for the goods purchased at Allahabad and Pratapgard and Rs.10,000/- towards Miscellaneous expenses like legal expenses, railway tickets etc., totalling to Rs.1,00,000/-. 3. The railway authorities filed its written statement before the Tribunal admitting booking of the luggage of the respondent, denying the value of the luggage and that the respondent has not declared value of his luggage at the time of booking and paid only percentage charges as required under Section 103 of The Railways Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”), as such, liability of the railway authorities is limited to the maximum extent of Rs.50/- per kilogram only. 4. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal: “1. What is the value of the non-delivered luggage booked by the applicant from Secunderabad to Alahabad on 1.5.2000? 2 . Whether the applicant is entitled to claim Rs.1 lakh as prayed? 3. To what relief?” 5. Based on the material on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the respondent towards value of his luggage that was undelivered by the railway authorities. Aggrieved by the same, the railway authorities preferred this appeal. 6. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant – railway authorities is that the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.30,000/- to the respondent towards value of the luggage that was undelivered to him by the railway authorities as per the consignment. He contends that the respondent has not mentioned the value of the luggage on the luggage form as prescribed under Section 103 of the Act and when value of the luggage was not declared by him and description of the articles was also not mentioned, he is entitled to only a minimum compensation as per Section 103 of the Act. He further contends that the respondent is entitled to only an amount of Rs.50/- per kilogram of the luggage and as stated by the respondent, the weight of the luggage was 45 Kgs., as such, he is entitled to the compensation of Rs.2,250/- (Rs.50/- x 45 Kgs) only and thus the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and contrary to Section 103 of the Act. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has suffered a loss of more than Rs.1,00,000/-, but taking into consideration of over all circumstances, the Tribunal has awarded only a meager amount of Rs.30,000/-, as such, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 8. To appreciate the rival contentions, I have gone through the material placed before this Court. 9. The railway authorities have not disputed the facts of the case. 10. The respondent, admittedly, travelled from Secunderabad to Allahabad on 01-05-2002 and booked his luggage by filling the appropriate form mentioning the details of the articles as gift articles weighing about 45 Kgs. and the railway authorities have accepted the same vide R.R. No.411853. However, nowhere the respondent has clearly mentioned that the luggage consists of wedding garments. On the backside of the form, railway officer has accepted the said form filled up by the respondent and collected wages from him for carrying the parcel luggage for 45 Kgs. of weight. The railway officer has not objected for consignment of the respondent’s luggage for non- declaration of the value of that luggage. 11. To examine the contention of the learned counsel for the railway authorities that as per Section 103 of the Act, the monetary liability of the railway authorities is limited to the extent of Rs.50/- per Kg. only in the absence of non-declaration of the value of the consigned goods/luggage, it is appropriate to examine sub- sections (9) and (23) of Section 2 of the Act which deal with “consignment” and “luggage” respectively and according to which “consignment” means goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage and “luggage” means the goods of a passenger either carried by him in his charge or entrusted to a railway administration for carriage. 12. Section 103 and sub-sections (9) and (23) of Section 2 of the Act are as under: “Section 103. Extent of monetary liability in respect of any consignment:- (1) 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 the consignor, the amount of liability of the railway administration for the 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, and where such consignment consists of an animal, the liability shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the consignor declares the value of any consignment at the time of its entrustment to a railway administration for carriage by railway, and pays such percentage charge as may be prescribed on so much of the value of such consignment as is in excess of the liability of the railway administration as calculated or specified, as the case may be, under sub-section (1), the liability of the railway administration for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of such consignment shall not exceed the value so declared. (3) The Central Government may, from time to time, by notification, direct that such goods as may be specified in the notification shall not be accepted for carriage by railway unless the value of such goods is declared and percentage charge is paid as required under sub-section (2). Section 2 (9): “consignment” means goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage. Section 2(23): “luggage” means the goods of a passenger either carried by him in his charge or entrusted to a railway administration for carriage” 13. In the present case, respondent is a passenger travelling along with the luggage more than the permissible weight. On ticket, he is entitled to carry only 25 Kgs. of weight, but he is carrying about 45 Kgs., as such, he has entrusted his luggage to the railway authorities for carrying the same to Allahabad by filling up appropriate form, paying prescribed fees and giving description of those articles as ‘gift articles’ and the same was accepted by the railway authorities without any objection and subsequently failed to deliver the same since the same was lost in the journey. Hence, the luggage entrusted by the respondent to the railway authorities for carrying to Allahabad from Secunderabad has to be considered as ‘luggage’ entrusted by a passenger under sub-section (23) of Section 2 of the Act but not as a “consignment” under sub-section (9) of Section 2 of the Act. 14. Learned counsel for the railway authorities contends that Section 103 of the Act is applicable to the present case, as the respondent has not declared the value of the luggage. 15. However, since the goods/articles entrusted by the respondent to the railway authorities for carrying to the destination point is not a ‘consignment’ and as it is a “luggage” as defined under sub-section (23) of Section 2 of the Act, the contention of the learned counsel for the railway authorities that in the absence of non-declaration of the value of the goods by the respondent as per Section 103 of the Act disentitles him for the compensation claimed by him, cannot be accepted. Hence, it is clear that the respondent is entitled to the value of the luggage that was failed to deliver to him by the railway authorities, but not as per Section 103 of the Act, which deals with ‘consignment’. 16. Apart from the above, on merits, a perusal of the oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence produced by the respondent clearly show that he has filled up an appropriate form at the time of booking of his luggage mentioning that the luggage is consisting of gift articles. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the railway authorities that the respondent has not given description of the luggage articles is also not correct. The respondent has mentioned the weight as well as description of the luggage articles. Though he has not declared the value of the luggage articles in the column prescribed for that purpose, the railway authorities have accepted to carry that luggage. Hence, at this point of time, they cannot turn around and contend that the respondent is entitled to compensation only as per Section 103 of the Act as he has not declared the value of the luggage. Further the overwhelming evidence adduced by the respondent clearly establishes that the luggage contains gift articles meant for marriage. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the respondent towards value of the luggage articles against the railway authorities though he claimed Rs.1,00,000/- and rejecting the contention of the railway authorities that the respondent is entitled to compensation only as per Section 103 of the Act. Thus, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J January 27, 2011. PV