Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
+ FAO No.226/1996
M/s. Sher Singh Industries ........ Appellant
through: Mr. M.L.Bhargava, Advocate
VERSUS
UOI ........ Respondent
through: Mr. S.R.Narayan, Advocate
DATE OF DECISION:
% 24.4.2008
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Pradeep Nandrajog
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes
: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the order dated 15.02.96 passed by
the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi.
2. The appellant M/s Sher Singh Industries filed a claim
application against the respondent claiming a compensation of
Rs.16,100/-.
3. The case set up by the appellant was that it had entrusted
a consignment comprising of 1100 bags of Kabuli gram (white chana)
to the respondent for transport from Wadibunder station to New Delhi.
FAO No.226/96 page 1 of 6
That the consignment was booked under railway receipt no. 083740
dated 26.07.91. That the consignment was found in a damaged
condition on 28.08.91 i.e. when the delivery of the consignment was
taken from the respondent. That the damage took place due to gross
negligence and misconduct of the employees of the respondent. That it
called upon the respondent to make payment of the compensation for
the loss and issued notice under Section 78-B of the Indian Railways
Act, 1890 and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure for settlement
of the claim. That the market rate of Kabuli gram at the relevant time
was Rs.1,650/- per quintal and suffered a loss in sum of Rs.42,817/-.
That the respondent accepted its fault but by arbitrarily applying the
rate of the Kabuli gram at Rs.1,185/- per quintal sent a cheque of
Rs.25,917/- towards damages. That the said cheque was accepted
under protest and the respondent is thus liable to pay a balance sum
of Rs.16,100/- (Rs.42,817/- – Rs.25,917/- = Rs.16,100/-)
4. From the facts noted above it is clear that the parties were
at variance regarding the rate of the Kabuli gram at the relevant time.
5. Noting the report produced by the Claims Inspector,
Railways which was based upon the rates of the Kabuli gram published
in the Economic Times newspaper the Tribunal has determined the
market rate of the Kabuli gram at the relevant time as Rs.1,185/- per
quintal. Additionally, the Tribunal has noted that the witness produced
by the appellant admitted in his testimony that the rate of the Kabuli
gram was Rs.900/- per quintal at the relevant time; that no
documentary evidence was led by the appellant to establish that the
FAO No.226/96 page 2 of 6
market price of the Kabuli gram was Rs.1,650/- per quintal; that the bill
regarding the purchase of the consignment by the appellant does not
contain the name of the consignor M/s Dallal K. Mangal Das; that the
consignment has been described as Katta Kabuli (Double Doller) in the
bill whereas same has been described as grain and pulses (Kabuli
gram) in the railway receipt;
6. Taking market rate of the Kabuli gram as Rs.1,185/- per
quintal the Tribunal has held that the appellant is not entitled to any
compensation and thus dismissed the claim application filed by the
appellant.
7. Challenge in the appeal is limited to the price of the Kabuli
gram of determined by the Tribunal.
8. To establish the market rate of the Kabuli gram at the
relevant time, the appellant examined one Mr.Ram Niwas, the partner
of the appellants' firm, AW-1. He deposed that the appellant firm
conducts its business from Delhi. That on 26.7.91 the appellant firm
purchased the consignment from M/s S. Chetan Traders, Bombay. That
the bill dated 26.7.91 Ex.RW1/1 was issued by M/s S. Chetan Traders in
his presence. That the consignment was booked for transport from
Bombay to Delhi by the firm M/s Dallal K.Mangal Das (commission
agent). He also proved entries pertaining to payment in respect of the
consignment in the cash book and ledger book of the appellant firm as
Ex.A1/5 and Ex.A1/6 respectively.
9. Per contra, respondent examined one Sh.B.S.Sharma,
Claim Inspector, Railways, AW-2. As already noted, he proved the
FAO No.226/96 page 3 of 6
report made by him wherein he had assessed market rate of the Kabuli
gram on the basis of the market rates published in the newspapers.
10. Learned Tribunal disbelieved the testimony of the witness
of the appellant and adopted the report of the Claims Inspector,
Railways which was based upon the rates published in the newspaper.
11. In so far as four circumstances noted by the learned
Tribunal which are noted by me in para 5 above, it is relevant to note
that the witness of the appellant, AW-1 in his cross-examination has
categorically denied the suggestion that the rate of the Kabuli gram
was Rs.900/- per quintal at the relevant time and has not admitted that
the rate of the Kabuli gram was Rs.900/- per quintal at the relevant
time as noted by the learned Tribunal.
12. The Tribunal has wrongly noted that no documentary
evidence was produced by the appellant to establish that the rate of
the Kabuli gram was Rs.1650/- per quintal in as much as the witness of
the appellant produced the original bill as also entries pertaining to
payment of the consignment in the cash book and ledger book of the
appellant firm.
13. The fact that the bill dated 26.7.1991 Ex.RW-1/1 does not
contain the name of the consignor M/s. Dallal K. Mangal Dass is of no
relevance for the reason the consignment was purchased by the
appellant firm itself. The witness of the appellant AW-1 in his
testimony categorically deposed that the appellant firm had purchased
the goods and that the same were booked for transport from Bombay
to Delhi by M/s. Dallal K. Mangal Dass. A perusal of the railway receipt
FAO No.226/96 page 4 of 6
which is on page 125 of the trial court record reveals that the same
contains a noting that the consignment is to be delivered to M/s. Sher
Singh Industries i.e. the appellant firm. This substantiates the case of
the appellant that M/s. Dallal K. Mangal Dass was the consignor and
that the appellant firm was a consignee.
14. Lastly, in so far as variance in description of the
consignment in the railway receipt and bill Ex. RW-1/1 is concerned,
suffice would it be to note that the bill describes the consignment as
'katta kabuli 31 U.P. (Double Doller)' and the railway receipt describes
the same as '1100 katta (bags) Grain and pulses (Kabuli Gram)'. The
difference in the description is of no consequence as from both the
descriptions it is clear that 1100 bags of Kabuli gram were
purchased/consigned.
15. The rates published in the newspapers as adopted by the
Tribunal is an extrinsic evidence.
16. It is well established principle of law that where intrinsic
evidence is readily available the Courts should rely upon the intrinsic
evidence and eschew extrinsic evidence. (See the decision of this court
reported as S.Harpreet Singh Chawla v Ceat Ltd & Anr 134 (2006) DLT
378)
17. In view of above discussion, I hold that the appellant has
sufficiently established that the rate of the Kabuli gram was Rs.1650/-
per quintal at the relevant time.
18. I thus allow the claim of the appellant in sum of Rs.16,100/-
together with the interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition
FAO No.226/96 page 5 of 6
i.e. 7.5.1992 till date of the payment.
19. Appeal is allowed in terms of para 18 above.
20. No costs.
April 24, 2008 (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
sl JUDGE
FAO No.226/96 page 6 of 6
+ FAO No.226/1996
M/s. Sher Singh Industries ........ Appellant
through: Mr. M.L.Bhargava, Advocate
VERSUS
UOI ........ Respondent
through: Mr. S.R.Narayan, Advocate
DATE OF DECISION:
% 24.4.2008
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Pradeep Nandrajog
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes
: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the order dated 15.02.96 passed by
the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi.
2. The appellant M/s Sher Singh Industries filed a claim
application against the respondent claiming a compensation of
Rs.16,100/-.
3. The case set up by the appellant was that it had entrusted
a consignment comprising of 1100 bags of Kabuli gram (white chana)
to the respondent for transport from Wadibunder station to New Delhi.
FAO No.226/96 page 1 of 6
That the consignment was booked under railway receipt no. 083740
dated 26.07.91. That the consignment was found in a damaged
condition on 28.08.91 i.e. when the delivery of the consignment was
taken from the respondent. That the damage took place due to gross
negligence and misconduct of the employees of the respondent. That it
called upon the respondent to make payment of the compensation for
the loss and issued notice under Section 78-B of the Indian Railways
Act, 1890 and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure for settlement
of the claim. That the market rate of Kabuli gram at the relevant time
was Rs.1,650/- per quintal and suffered a loss in sum of Rs.42,817/-.
That the respondent accepted its fault but by arbitrarily applying the
rate of the Kabuli gram at Rs.1,185/- per quintal sent a cheque of
Rs.25,917/- towards damages. That the said cheque was accepted
under protest and the respondent is thus liable to pay a balance sum
of Rs.16,100/- (Rs.42,817/- – Rs.25,917/- = Rs.16,100/-)
4. From the facts noted above it is clear that the parties were
at variance regarding the rate of the Kabuli gram at the relevant time.
5. Noting the report produced by the Claims Inspector,
Railways which was based upon the rates of the Kabuli gram published
in the Economic Times newspaper the Tribunal has determined the
market rate of the Kabuli gram at the relevant time as Rs.1,185/- per
quintal. Additionally, the Tribunal has noted that the witness produced
by the appellant admitted in his testimony that the rate of the Kabuli
gram was Rs.900/- per quintal at the relevant time; that no
documentary evidence was led by the appellant to establish that the
FAO No.226/96 page 2 of 6
market price of the Kabuli gram was Rs.1,650/- per quintal; that the bill
regarding the purchase of the consignment by the appellant does not
contain the name of the consignor M/s Dallal K. Mangal Das; that the
consignment has been described as Katta Kabuli (Double Doller) in the
bill whereas same has been described as grain and pulses (Kabuli
gram) in the railway receipt;
6. Taking market rate of the Kabuli gram as Rs.1,185/- per
quintal the Tribunal has held that the appellant is not entitled to any
compensation and thus dismissed the claim application filed by the
appellant.
7. Challenge in the appeal is limited to the price of the Kabuli
gram of determined by the Tribunal.
8. To establish the market rate of the Kabuli gram at the
relevant time, the appellant examined one Mr.Ram Niwas, the partner
of the appellants' firm, AW-1. He deposed that the appellant firm
conducts its business from Delhi. That on 26.7.91 the appellant firm
purchased the consignment from M/s S. Chetan Traders, Bombay. That
the bill dated 26.7.91 Ex.RW1/1 was issued by M/s S. Chetan Traders in
his presence. That the consignment was booked for transport from
Bombay to Delhi by the firm M/s Dallal K.Mangal Das (commission
agent). He also proved entries pertaining to payment in respect of the
consignment in the cash book and ledger book of the appellant firm as
Ex.A1/5 and Ex.A1/6 respectively.
9. Per contra, respondent examined one Sh.B.S.Sharma,
Claim Inspector, Railways, AW-2. As already noted, he proved the
FAO No.226/96 page 3 of 6
report made by him wherein he had assessed market rate of the Kabuli
gram on the basis of the market rates published in the newspapers.
10. Learned Tribunal disbelieved the testimony of the witness
of the appellant and adopted the report of the Claims Inspector,
Railways which was based upon the rates published in the newspaper.
11. In so far as four circumstances noted by the learned
Tribunal which are noted by me in para 5 above, it is relevant to note
that the witness of the appellant, AW-1 in his cross-examination has
categorically denied the suggestion that the rate of the Kabuli gram
was Rs.900/- per quintal at the relevant time and has not admitted that
the rate of the Kabuli gram was Rs.900/- per quintal at the relevant
time as noted by the learned Tribunal.
12. The Tribunal has wrongly noted that no documentary
evidence was produced by the appellant to establish that the rate of
the Kabuli gram was Rs.1650/- per quintal in as much as the witness of
the appellant produced the original bill as also entries pertaining to
payment of the consignment in the cash book and ledger book of the
appellant firm.
13. The fact that the bill dated 26.7.1991 Ex.RW-1/1 does not
contain the name of the consignor M/s. Dallal K. Mangal Dass is of no
relevance for the reason the consignment was purchased by the
appellant firm itself. The witness of the appellant AW-1 in his
testimony categorically deposed that the appellant firm had purchased
the goods and that the same were booked for transport from Bombay
to Delhi by M/s. Dallal K. Mangal Dass. A perusal of the railway receipt
FAO No.226/96 page 4 of 6
which is on page 125 of the trial court record reveals that the same
contains a noting that the consignment is to be delivered to M/s. Sher
Singh Industries i.e. the appellant firm. This substantiates the case of
the appellant that M/s. Dallal K. Mangal Dass was the consignor and
that the appellant firm was a consignee.
14. Lastly, in so far as variance in description of the
consignment in the railway receipt and bill Ex. RW-1/1 is concerned,
suffice would it be to note that the bill describes the consignment as
'katta kabuli 31 U.P. (Double Doller)' and the railway receipt describes
the same as '1100 katta (bags) Grain and pulses (Kabuli Gram)'. The
difference in the description is of no consequence as from both the
descriptions it is clear that 1100 bags of Kabuli gram were
purchased/consigned.
15. The rates published in the newspapers as adopted by the
Tribunal is an extrinsic evidence.
16. It is well established principle of law that where intrinsic
evidence is readily available the Courts should rely upon the intrinsic
evidence and eschew extrinsic evidence. (See the decision of this court
reported as S.Harpreet Singh Chawla v Ceat Ltd & Anr 134 (2006) DLT
378)
17. In view of above discussion, I hold that the appellant has
sufficiently established that the rate of the Kabuli gram was Rs.1650/-
per quintal at the relevant time.
18. I thus allow the claim of the appellant in sum of Rs.16,100/-
together with the interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition
FAO No.226/96 page 5 of 6
i.e. 7.5.1992 till date of the payment.
19. Appeal is allowed in terms of para 18 above.
20. No costs.
April 24, 2008 (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
sl JUDGE
FAO No.226/96 page 6 of 6