Shree Shyam Agency vs Union Of India & Ors

3. The claim petition OA No. (1) 2 of 2010 was preferred by the 3rd respondent against the Southern and Eastern Central Railways before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench claiming an amount of Rs.9,46,85,726/- together with the interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment and also for other consequential reliefs.

4. In the claim petition, the appellant herein filed I.A. 3/2011 for intervention claiming to be an interested party stating that its presence is necessary for a proper adjudication of the claim. I.A.4/2011 was also preferred by the 2nd respondent herein Central Railway to implead three other parties, namely Subham Sugar Agencies, Umesh Chaudhary, Ex. Goods Supervisor, Tatuha and Ambika Sugars Ltd., contending that the Railway Claims Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) has no jurisdiction to proceed with the case since it involved contractual disputes, criminal conspiracy, cheating and that a complaint filed by the above mentioned parties are pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

5. The Tribunal heard both the applications, i.e. I.A.3/2011 and I.A.4/2011 and a common order was passed on 15.4.2011, stating that inter se disputes between private parties cannot be decided by the Tribunal in a claim petition. It also took the view that the Railway Administration through those parties is trying to linger on with the proceedings and, under no circumstance, the application for impleading the other three parties can be entertained. Both I.A.3/2011 and I.A.4/2011 were accordingly dismissed.

6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, C.R.P. (PD) No. 1713 of 2011 was preferred by the appellant herein, CRP (PD) No. 2152 of 2011 and CRP (PD) No. 2153 of 2011 by Southern Railway and Central Railway, before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. All the three civil revision petitions were heard and a common order was passed on 9.9.2011 dismissing all the revision petitions and confirming the order passed by the Tribunal, against which the appellant in C.R.P. (PD) No. 1713 of 2011 has come up before this Court with the present appeal. Railway Administration, however, accepted the order passed by the Tribunal which has been affirmed by the High Court by the impugned judgment.

7. For disposal of this appeal, reference to few facts is necessary. Claimant, the third respondent herein a company having its head office at Chennai, is engaged in the business of manufacturer of white crystal sugar having its factories at Thirumanthankudi village, Papiasam Taluk, Thanjavur District and A. Chittur Village, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District. They used to sell free sugar in Northern Indian markets consisting of West Bengal, Bihar, etc. by transporting the consignments in racks through the services provided by the Railways. Railway receipts are made out showing the consignee as “Self” which are thereafter endorsed by the consignor to the buyer on payment of the sale price. The endorsed consignee/buyer takes delivery of goods of the respective destinations by surrender of the Railway Receipts. Claimant states that a dealer, by name Shubham Sugar Agencies, Kolkata, placed an order with the claimant for purchase of 27000 quintal of free sale sugar with payment conditions stipulating that the endorsed railway receipts would be released on receipt of entire sale consideration. Claimant stated that it has booked consignment on 1.2.2010 for transportation from Kumbakonam to Fatuha, Bihar and that the railway receipts were drawn as “Self” and were in the custody of the claimant and that the purchaser was expected to remit the sale price and get the railway receipts endorsed in its favour. The goods reached the destination on 10.2.1010. The buyer failed to pay the sale price and the goods, as stated by the appellant, were kept at the railway godown incurring wharfage charges. Further, it was stated that the claimant then sent a letter to the Senior DGM/Southern Railway/Trichy on 23.4.2010 and informed that the railway receipts were in the custody of the claimant and requested either to shift the consignment to other destination or bring it back to Kumbakonam. The claimant was, however, informed on 4.5.2010 by the Railways that the consignment was delivered at Fatuha on 10.2.2010 on the strength of Indemnity Note without disclosing the person to whom it was delivered. Claimant maintained the stand that since the consignments were booked under “Self” basis, the delivery to a third party was without authority and amounted to negligence, misconduct and misappropriation and hence, the Railway Administration is legally liable to pay compensation being the value of the goods for non-delivery.

……………………………………….…J (K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN) ………………………………………..J. (DIPAK MISRA) New Delhi, October 18, 2012