1 1 1 39 91 l 1 0 le FAO Noa 4069 of 20080 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB 8 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 FO No 4069 of 2008 4 C 0 0 Date of Decision2 July 2011 1 I 0 Mlse Indian Oil Corooration Delhi Ltde Vse Union of India Z C Presentl MrAshish Kapoor Advocate for the appellant I Mr JagdishMarwaha Advocate for the respondent Z m m Z Mohinder Pal J Qm This appeal IS directed against the order dated 142008 passedby the RailwayClaims Tribunal ChandigarhBench hereinafter referred to as the Tribunall whereby the claim petition to the extent of Rs 18233600 filed by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited lereinafter referred to as the appellant Corporationl was dismissed I have heard the Iearned counsel for the partiesand have gonethrough the records of the case The case of the appellantCorporationIS that it had got Batra Amit 2013.04.14 00: 51 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 40 1 b 0 2e FJO No069 of 20080 booked Tank Wagon Wl No NRe74169 vide RR No01736 dated 279 1999 containing Furnace Oil from its Depot at Mathurato its Depot at Ambala At the destination the said TW 1 4 was received in a Ieaking condition with the seals on the to 0 and bottom missing Accordingto the there 0 0 was net shortage of 21890 Iitres of Furnace Oil and the seais I of t5 I It has been arguedby the Iearned counsel for the that the Tribunal dismissed the claim Z petitionwithout proper appreciationof the evidence on record r and that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the I failed to establish on record the actual quantity Ioaded in the TW Accordingto the Iearned counsel for Z the appellantCorporationsince the railwayadministration failed 00 to account for Ioss it is Iiable to make goodthe same VA7 Z I have given my thoughtfulconsideration to the QU argumentsraised by Iearned counsel for the appellantCorporation but do not find any substance in the same In this case the consignmentwas Ioaded and sealed in the privatesiding of the consignorie appellantCorporation itself There was no measurement of the rnaterial under the supervisionof the railway staff In this case Mr GDS Sodhi DeputyManager LawJ of the appellantCorporationhad deposed before the Tribunal on 2872006 In his crossexamination he stated as under U I was present neither at the time of Batra Amit 2013.04.14 00: 51 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 41 ll b 0 3 FeO N 4069 of 2008 Ioading nor at the time of unloading of the consignment Ill question I have no personal knowledge as far as this consignmentIS 1 concerned I have filed my affidavit on tMe C2 basis of record The consignment in 0 C0 questionwas Ioaded and unloaded at our I privatesiding It is correct to suggest that C5 I saidto contain railway receiptwas issued It is correct to suggest that the Ioading and Z unloadingwas not supervised by the railway staff It is correct to suggest that the deiivery was effected at the inter changepoint Il mo Z Section 65 of the RailwaysAct provides that in case m of a consignment in wagonmload or traineIoad the weightorthe V2 Z number of packages IS not checked by a railway servant tl authorized in this behalf and a statement to that effect is recorded in such railwayreceiptby himthe burden of provingthe weight or as the case may be the number of packagesstated therein shall Iie on the consignor the consignee or the endorsee In the instant case since the consignment in questionwas admittedly Ioaded and unloaded at the private sidingof the saidto contain railway receiptwas issued and theloading and unloadingwas not supervised by the railway staff the railway departmentcannot be held IiabIe for the shortage of Furnace Oii if any The Tribunal duly considered the rivai verSlOIlS put Batra Amit 2013.04.14 00: 51 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 42 l 0 4 FeAe0 4069 of 20080 forth before it by the parties before dismissingthe claim petition of the In view of the above and without dilating any further on j the point at issue I do not find any merit in this appeal The samt is accordinglydismissed 0 0 20110 PALI t5 1 ak JUDGE 1 Z C t Z CO vm Z Q r V 1 ll l r 7 Batra Amit 2013.04.14 00: 51 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document