IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 MFA.No. 31 of 2006() -------------------- OA.36/2003 of RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT IN O.A. -------------------------------- UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT IN O.A ------------------------------- SHARAFUDEEN.M., M.K.FABRIC, USHUS COMPLEX, VADAYATTUKOTTA, KOLLAM-1. ADV. SRI.MARTIN G.THOTTAN FOR R1 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2009, ALONG WITH MFA NO. 48 OF 2006 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.F.A. NOs. 31 & 48 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009. J U D G M E N T Both these appeals are preferred by the Railways against the orders passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.S.36/03 and O.A.37/03. O.A.36/03 was filed by the proprietor of M.K. Fabric, a ready-made garment Centre at Kollam claiming a compensation of Rs.33,614/- towards the value of three bundles of ready- made garments short delivered by the Railways. It is the case of the applicant that he booked five bundles of ready- made garments at Howrah Railway Station to Kollam in the brake van of the Express train, in which representative of the applicant was travelling and the same was booked as luggage under the luggage Ticket No.245116. When the train reached Kollam there was short delivery of three bundles. Therefore the petition is filed requesting to pay a sum of Rs.46,964/-. Out of this Rs.13,350/- was paid which was received under protest and now the balance claim is for M.F.A. Nos. 31 & 48 OF 2006 -:2:- Rs.33,614/-. In O.A.37/2003 the same applicant is the petitioner and there is short delivery and the amount claimed is Rs.50,000/- out of which Rs.11,000/- was granted and the balance claim is for Rs.39,000/-. 2. Railway administration contended that since the value of the articles were not specifically stated in the application form it is a case governed by S.103 (1) of Railways Act, 1989 r/w Rules 3(1) (iii) of the Railways (Extent of Monetary Liability and Prescription of Percentage Charge) Rules 1990 for the alleged shortage of three bundles. The Railway Tribunal found in favour of the applicant regarding the loss of bundles and held that the case will come as one within the ambit of Rule 3(1)(ii) of the Railways (Extent of Monetary Liability and Prescription of Percentage Charge) Rules 1990 and on the weight in stead of granting an amount at the rate of Rs.50 per kl.gm granted at Rs.100/- per kl.gm. It is challenging that decision the Railways has come up in appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides. Learned counsel appearing for respondents namely applicant before the Tribunal would strongly contend before me that M.F.A. Nos. 31 & 48 OF 2006 -:3:- this is not a case coming within the ambit of S.103 and therefore the rules referred to does not govern the granting of the amount and therefore the Tribunal has erred in under estimating the entitlement of the claimant to have the value of the luggage booked. On the contra the learned counsel for the Railway Administration strongly contends before me the Tribunal totally erred in putting the case under Rule 3(1) (ii) whereas it is only coming under Rule (i) and (iii). The learned Tribunal held that there is no definition for the word baggage under the Railways Act and therefore extended the dictionary meaning of the word baggage to arrive at a decision. Learned Tribunal unfortunately has forgotten the rules on which he has granted amount. Baggage means personal things of a passenger entrusted to Railway Administration for carriage. When it is defined under the rules he should not have resorted to dictionary meaning. Therefore the finding of the Tribunal in that regard is erroneous and it has to be held so. 4. Now a larger question arises. The larger question is whether S.103 is applicable or it is S.100 that is applicable. The learned senior counsel for the Railways M.F.A. Nos. 31 & 48 OF 2006 -:4:- strongly contends before me that the word consignment used in S.103 of the Act as well as the rules takes in the luggage as well and therefore the generic expression 'consignment' used in S.103 and the rules were relating to all types of goods carried by the Railways and therefore it will be governed by the particular rule mentioned above. 5. On the contra learned counsel for the respondent would strongly contend before me that under the Railways Act, the word consignment, luggage and parcel had been separately defined and the legislature in its wisdom has chosen to do so and so one cannot make a uniform application stating that since all involves goods all are one and the same. Learned counsel for the respondent also relies upon a decision of the Bombay High Court reported in Rajen Hukmchand Jain v. Union of India (2006 Bombay 129). It was decided in that case that when a passenger is travelling in a train has entrusted goods to the railway administration for carriage the said goods would fall within the definition of luggage and not within the definition of consignment and therefore it shall be S.100 that will be applicable and not S.103 of the Act. The consignment is M.F.A. Nos. 31 & 48 OF 2006 -:5:- defined u/s 2(9) of the Railways Act. Consignment means goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage. The word luggage is defined under S.2(23) of the Railways Act which means the goods of passenger either carried by him in his charge or entrusted to a railway administration for carriage. The word parcel means goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by a passenger or a parcel train. So the definition of the word luggage very clearly indicates that there must be somebody in the form of a passenger who is there in the train and suppose the goods are not carried by him personally in his own seat or compartment he can do it by entrusting it to the Railway Administration to carry it in the very same train or otherwise they are the goods really accompanying the passenger who is issued a ticket known as luggage ticket. So the statute is also very clear. The word receipt really is a document of title so far as booking of the railway materials are concerned. So one can clearly understand from the definition of consignment and luggage as follows. 6. So far as the consignment is concerned it is entrusted to the Railway Administration for transport without M.F.A. Nos. 31 & 48 OF 2006 -:6:- any person accompanying or travelling with the goods. Whereas when it is a luggage and a luggage ticket is issued necessarily the luggage should accompany a passenger who possess a passenger ticket for travelling and the goods which he takes in is covered by the luggage ticket. So far as this case is concerned admittedly it was a luggage ticket and there was a ticket issued to the person who was travelling in the same train. So the contention of the learned counsel for the Railway Administration that the consignment and luggage has to be read as one cannot be accepted. 7. Now, the next contention of the learned senior counsel is that irrespective of the fact S.100 or 103, the Railways (Extent of Monetary Liability and Prescription of Percentage Charge) Rules 1990 that is applicable. I feel the said argument cannot be accepted for the reason that a monetary liability, the railway administration relating to the damages, destruction, and deterioration of non delivery of any consignment is a fact that is governed under Rule 3 of the said rules at the time of proclaiming the rules and that too when it is so under the provisions of the Railway Acts the authority issuing the rules were conscious of the fact that the M.F.A. Nos. 31 & 48 OF 2006 -:7:- word luggage and consignment has got two different connotations so far as the Railway Act is concerned and under such circumstances when the consignment alone is used and the word luggage is omitted it will not be correct to hold that the rule that will guide the determination of the compensation under the Act. S.103 also specifically relates to the word consignment and not the word luggage whereas S.100 of the Act specifically deals with the luggage. Therefore when S.103 is not made applicable then the embargo for restricting the amount as per S.3(ii) and (iii) does not arise and it my be the general principles of civil law that may have to be applied. The amount claimed is much more than what is awarded and there are receipts evidencing the same and only a lesser amount of compensation is granted in these cases and therefore though the modality in which the matter is determined is not proper and as the applicant has not chosen to challenge the said award before any competent authority I feel that one need not have to dwell deep into this matter for the solitary reason that the amount awarded is not in excess or not against the provisions of law and therefore the judgment of the Tribunal M.F.A. Nos. 31 & 48 OF 2006 -:8:- does not call for any interference and therefore these appeals are dismissed but under the circumstances without any order as to costs. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-