IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14271 of 2007 ANIL KUMAR GUPTA son of Baijnath Prasasd Gupta, Lalit Co- operative, Road No. 20, Rajiv Nagar, Patna-24. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, Ministry of Railway, through the Chief Electrical Engineer (Head Quarter), Railway Electrification, Danapur. 2. The Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer (H.Q), Railway Electrification, Danapur. 3. The D. E. E. (H.Q)/R.E./Danapur. 4. The Chief Project Manager, Railway Electrification, Danapur. 5. The Dy. Chief Electrical Engineer (Co-ord), Railway Electrification, Kolkata. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, No.1. For the respondent railway : M/S. Bindhyachal Singh, Ram Vinod Singh and Sushil Kumar Singh. 03. 15.4.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent railways as also keeping in view the earlier order passed in Annexure-10 in CWJC No. 13574 of 2003, the Court does not find any legal infirmity with the impugned order contained in Annexure-11. Annexure-11 has been passed pursuant to the direction of the Court which states the reason for deduction of certain amount from the bills and security of the petitioner for the damage caused to the insulators during the course of transportation from Palghat to different destinations in Bihar. It cannot be said that the transporter has no liability to take care of the goods in question. Obviously wear and tear has happened and damage to the insulators has been found , the petitioner has to account for the same. It also emerges that there is kind of insurance cover which has been taken against the goods by the transporter. . 2 If that is so, then it is for the insurance company to settle the claim of the petitioner and proper adjustment of amount will have to be made against the deduction which has already been done. The writ application stands disposed of with observation as above. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )