Dismissed

Ganesh Pd. Arya v. Union of India through the Gen

Patna HC26 Sept 2013MA/383/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court allowed interlocutory applications for condonation of delay in filing miscellaneous appeals. The court subsequently dismissed the appeals challenging Railway Claims Tribunal orders denying compensation for short deliveries of salt consignments, relying on a prior judgment.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay allowed; underlying compensation claims dismissed.

Ganesh Pd. Arya Vs Union of India through the Gen — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.380 of 2011

¶2

====================================================== Ganesh Pd. Arya son of Late Bhagwan Das Arya, Properioter, Ms Hanuman Salt Bhandar, Post Office Road, Warisaliganj, District-Nawada .... .... Appellant/s Versus

¶3

Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata

¶4

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.381 of 2011 ====================================================== Ganesh Pd. Arya son of Late Bhagwan Das Arya, Properioter, Ms Hanuman Salt Bhandar, Post Office Road, Warisaliganj, District-Nawada .... .... Appellant/s Versus Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata .... .... Respondent/s

¶5

====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.382 of 2011

¶6

====================================================== Ganesh Pd. Arya son of Late Bhagwan Das Arya, Properioter, Ms Hanuman Salt Bhandar, Post Office Road, Warisaliganj, District-Nawada

¶7

.... .... Appellant/s Versus

¶8

Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata

¶9

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.383 of 2011

¶10

¶11

Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata

¶12

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.385 of 2011

¶13

======================================================

¶14

Patna High Court MA No.380 of 2011 (16) dt.26-09-2013

¶15

¶16

Ganesh Pd. Arya son of Late Bhagwan Das Arya, Properioter, Ms Hanuman Salt Bhandar, Post Office Road, Warisaliganj, District-Nawada

¶17

.... .... Appellant/s Versus Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata

¶18

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.387 of 2011

¶19

====================================================== Ganesh Pd. Arya son of Late Bhagwan Das Arya, Properioter, Ms Hanuman Salt Bhandar, Post Office Road, Warisaliganj, District-Nawada

¶20

.... .... Appellant/s Versus

¶21

Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata

¶22

.... .... Respondent/s

¶23

====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.388 of 2011

¶24

====================================================== Ganesh Pd. Arya son of Late Bhagwan Das Arya, Properioter, Ms Hanuman Salt Bhandar, Post Office Road, Warisaliganj, District-Nawada

¶25

.... .... Appellant/s Versus

¶26

Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata

¶27

.... .... Respondent/s

¶28

====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.389 of 2011

¶29

====================================================== Ganesh Pd. Arya son of Late Bhagwan Das Arya, Properioter, Ms Hanuman Salt Bhandar, Post Office Road, Warisaliganj, District-Nawada

¶30

.... .... Appellant/s

¶31

Versus

¶32

Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata

¶33

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER

¶34

16. 26-09-2013 Since all these appeals raise common questions of law and facts hence they have been taken up together with the consent of the parties

¶35

Patna High Court MA No.380 of 2011 (16) dt.26-09-2013

¶36

¶37

with a view to their final disposal.

¶38

Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh, learned counsel has appeared for the appellant in each of the appeals while the Union of India in its Ministry of Railways has been represented by Mr. Anil Singh.

¶39

The appeals are accompanied with interlocutory applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the condonation of delay in filing the appeals bearing I.A. No. 4416 of 2012 in M.A. No. 380 of 2011, I.A. No. 4415 of 2012 in M.A. No. 381 of 2011, I.A. No.4417 of 2012 in M.A. No. 382 of 2011, I.A. No. 4419 of 2012 in M.A. No. 383 of 2011, I.A. No. 3144 of 2012 in M.A. No. 385 of 2011, I.A. No. 4420 of 2012 in M.A. No. 387 of 2011, I.A. No. 4421 of 2012 in M.A. No. 388 of 2011 and I.A. No. 4422 of 2012 in M.A. No. 389 of 2011.

¶40

Perusal of the applications filed for condoning the delay manifests that there is a delay in filing of these appeals which varies up to 11 days.

¶41

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there has been no deliberate laches on the part of the appellant in pursuing his remedy and the delay being trivial in nature, the same may be condoned.

¶42

I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the prayer made for condonation of delay and upon being satisfied by the reasons assigned, the delay occasioned in filing of each of the appeals, is

¶43

Patna High Court MA No.380 of 2011 (16) dt.26-09-2013

¶44

¶45

condoned.

¶46

I.A. No. 4416 of 2012, I. A. No. 4415 of 2012, I.A. No.4417 of 2012, I.A. No. 4419 of 2012, I.A. No. 3144 of 2012, I.A. No. 4420 of 2012, I.A. No. 4421 of 2012 and I.A. No. 4422 of 2012 stand allowed.

¶47

Re: M.A. No. 380 of 2011 & analogous appeals:

¶48

This batch of appeals arise from different orders passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna filed by the appellants seeking compensation for the short delivery of the consignment of salt received by them, the details of which are given in the tabulated chart, hereinbelow.

¶49

The appellant is a trader engaged in the business of salt, running under the trade name of M/s. Hanuman Salt Bhandar having its Head office at Naya Bazar, Lakhisarai in the District of Lakhisarai and M/s. Shyam Salt Bhandar having its office and works at Post Office Road, Warsaliganj, District-Nawada in the State of Bihar. It is the case of the appellant that he purchased salt packed in bags from its supplier and commission agent having its business at Nawa City in the State of Rajasthan and booked the consignment for carriage in rail wagons from Nawa City, Rajasthan to Lakhisarai and Warsaliganj, DistrictNawada. It is the case of the appellant that on the arrival of each of the consignment at Lakhisarai insofar as the subject matter of M.A. 380 of 2011 is concerned and at Warsaliganj, District-Nawada insofar as the

¶50

Patna High Court MA No.380 of 2011 (16) dt.26-09-2013

¶51

¶52

other appeals are concerned, the consignment was found short. The appellant serving notice on the respondents under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) set up the claim cases relatable to each of the consignment found short at arrival, under Section 13(1) (a) (i) read with Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1987’) claiming compensation for the short delivery of the consignment of iodized salt. The claim cases have been rejected by the tribunal under different orders which are impugned in the appeals.

¶53

The respective relevant foundational facts governing each of the appeals are being reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience:

¶54

M.A. No.	Claim Case No.	Claim(Rupees)	Consignme per rai receipt no.	nt as lway	Short Deli	very	Consignment details as per Bijak
380 of 2011	OC-00026 of 2000	16,660/-	1000 bags b on 11.9.99 R.R. No.173	ooked vide 135	238 delivered 23.9.1999	bags on	1000 bags
381 of 2011	OC-00186 of 2001	23,380/-	1569 booked 01.01.2000 vide No.220767 220763	bags on R.R. and	334 delivered 16.01.200	bags on 0	1569 bags
382 of 2011	OC-00188 of 2001	24990/-	1797 booked 22.5.1999 R.R.No.17 and 17169	bags on vide 1694 1	357 delivered 1.6.1999 2.6.1999	bags on &	1797 bags
383 of 2011	OC-00225 of 2001	23310/-	781 booked 4.7.1999 RR No. 17	bags on vide 2090	333 delivered 24.9.1999	bags on	781 bags
385 of 2011	OC-00224 of 2001	24,290/-	1581 booked 1.1.2000/ 23.10.1999 vide No.220773	bags on RR and	347 delivered 16.1.2000 /11.1.1999	bags on	1581 bags

¶55

Patna High Court MA No.380 of 2011 (16) dt.26-09-2013

¶56

¶57

			173659
387 of 2011	OC-00308 of 2001	24,990/-	1176 booked 27/28.1.2 vide RRNo.24	bags on 000 2633	357 delivered 2.8.2000	bags on	1176 bags
388 of 2011	OC-00314 of 2001	23775/-	1176 booked 7/8.06.20 vide RR 241826	bags on 00 No.	317 delivered 21.6.2000	bags on	1176 bags
389 of 2011	OC-00244 of 2001	14560/-	950 booked 22.05.199 vide RR 171677	bags on 9 No.	208 delivered 31.5.1999	bags on	950 bags

¶58

I have heard learned counsel for the parties in each of the appeals and since the appeals raise common questions of law and facts and relate to the same proprietor hence they are being disposed of by a common order.

¶59

The facts leading to the present set of appeals are in a very narrow compass. The records in each of the claim cases have been summoned under the orders of this Court and a perusal thereof manifests that except for the railway receipt, copy of the notice served under Section 106 of the Act and the unloading particulars as per delivery book remark given by the goods supervisor, no other document was filed by the appellant and even the so called sale invoice (Bijak) was filed subsequently. The appellant had filed an application under Section 18(3) (b) of the Act of 1987 read with Rule 20(b) and 44 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the rules’) seeking a direction to the respondent to produce the loading register, forwarding note, the original railway receipt, the seal rivet and

¶60

Patna High Court MA No.380 of 2011 (16) dt.26-09-2013

¶61

¶62

labels, the outward tally book, the delivery book etc. of the relevant period, which according to the appellant would prove the loading. It is the case of the appellant that no documentary or oral evidence was led by the railways and that the tribunal even in absence of any evidence to contest the claim of the appellants as emanating from the documents on record which includes the bijak, the railway receipt and the notice under Section 106 of the Act and despite non production of the statutory registers maintained by the railway administration the production whereof, was sought by the appellant by filing an appropriate application, has rejected the claim relying upon the proviso to Section 65 (2) of the Act.

¶63

Identical facts govern all the appeals which are being heard analogous except for the variation in the number of bags which was received short by the appellant and which has been detailed in the chart hereinabove.

¶64

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials on record. All the issues which have been raised in these batch of appeals as also discussed hereinabove were subject matter of M.A. 503 of 2011 (Kanhaiya Bhalotia vs. Union of India and others) and analogous cases. This court taking into consideration the rival pleadings, the statutory provisions and the various judgments governing the issue, has dismissed the said appeals vide judgment and order passed

¶65

Patna High Court MA No.380 of 2011 (16) dt.26-09-2013

¶66

¶67

today i.e. 26.9.2013. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement in submitting that all the issues raised in the present set of appeals are squarely covered by the judgment and order passed by this Court in Kanhaiya Bhalotia (supra).

¶68

In the circumstances these appeals are dismissed.

¶69

The reasons assigned by this Court for dismissing the appeals which were subject matter of M.A. 503 of 2011 and analogous cases (Kanhaiya Bhalotia vs. Union) to uphold the order(s) passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna and to dismiss the appeals, shall form part of the present order.

¶70

No costs.

¶71

Let the lower court records received in the respective appeals be returned to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna forthwith.

¶72

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶73

S.Sb/-

Ganesh Pd. Arya v. Union of India through the Gen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Pd. Arya v. Union of India through the Gen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhawali Mandal @ Rajendra Mandal Vs The State Of Bihar

Smt. Shanti Kuwer and Ors. Vs Sri Deo Kumar Sharma and Ors.

Rusum Tara Vs The Union Of India

Kanhaiya Bhalotia Vs the Union of India

Ganesh Pd. Arya Vs Union of India through the Gen

Kanhaiya Bhalotia Vs the Union of India through the