Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 11801/2013 [From the judgment and order dated 15.06.2012 in CMA  No. 2561/2011 of the High Court of Madras]

Shri Ramji Enterprises Rep. by  Managing Partner …  Petitioner (s)   

Versus

Union of India and others … Respondent (s)

J U D G M E N T  

KURIAN, J.:

1. Petitioner  is  the  applicant  before  the  Railway  Claims  

Tribunal,  Chennai  in  Case  No.  O.A.(I)  5/2008.  The  

application was filed claiming compensation to the tune  

of  Rs.13,76,720/-  on  account  of  the  alleged  short  

delivery of the 264 metric tonnes of charcoal. According  

to  the  petitioner,  850  metric  tonnes  of  charcoal  in  

gunny bags weighing around 72 kilograms each were  

entrusted  to  the  Railways  at  Koodal  Nagar  Railway  

Station, Madurai by the petitioner for safe carriage and  

delivery  to  Indian  Metals  and  Ferro  Alloys  Limited  at  

Therubali  Railway  Station  in  Orissa,  under  railway  1

Page 2

receipts issued between 16th and 19th September, 1993.  

The charcoal  was  loaded in  28  wagons  directly  from  

lorries, as per the receipts of authorized weigh bridge at  

Madurai. Since there was no weigh bridge at the Koodal  

Nagar Railway Station,  the railway receipts  contained  

following note “No weigh bridge at KON, destination to  

weigh  collect  u/c  if  any”.  However,  when  the  goods  

were  delivered  at  Therubali  to  the  consignee  on  

25.09.1993, no further weighment was made.  

2. It appears, some disputes between the consignee and  

the petitioner (consignor) arose much later which also  

included  a  dispute  on  the  quantum  of  charcoal  

delivered.  Thus,  based  only  on  the  plea  of  short  

delivery, after around 1½ years, the petitioner filed a  

complaint  before  the  State  Consumer  Disputes  

Redressal  Commission  on  23.02.1995.   Though  the  

same  was  allowed,  the  National  Consumer  Disputes  

Redressal Commission set it aside on the ground of lack  

of  jurisdiction.  Thereafter,  the  petitioner  filed  the  

original application before the Railway Claims Tribunal  

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal  

framed the following issues:

2

Page 3

“1. Whether the petition is  barred by limitation  under Section 17(a) of the RCT Act as alleged  in Para 3 of the reply?

2. Whether a valid notice under Section 106 of  the  RCT  Act,  1989  was  served  on  the  respondent railways or not as alleged in Para  2 of the reply?

3. Whether  any  partial  delivery  certificate  has  been  issued  by  the  respondent  regarding  shortage of the consigned goods?

4. Whether  the  petitioner  is  liable  to  get  any  compensation or not?

5. Whether  the  petitioner  is  entitled  for  any  interest as claimed in the petition?

6. To what relief, if any?”

3. The issue no. 1 on limitation was answered in favour of  

the petitioner.  Issue No.  2 was answered against  the  

petitioner holding that no notice under Section 106 of  

the  Railways  Act,  1989  was  served  on  the  Railways.  

Issue no.  3  was also answered against  the petitioner  

and  in  favour  of  the  respondent  holding  that  the  

consignee had taken delivery of the entire consignment  

under clear receipt and without any protest and, hence,  

there was no question of any partial delivery certificate.  

Issue  nos.  4  and  5  were  also  answered  against  the  

petitioner. Thus, the application was dismissed by the  

Railway Claims Tribunal by judgment dated 14.12.2010.

3

Page 4

4. The  petitioner  pursued  its  further  remedy  in  Civil  

Miscellaneous Appeal before the High Court of Madras  

leading to the impugned judgment dated 15.06.2012.  

After  elaborately  considering  the  factual  and  legal  

aspects,  the  appeal  was  dismissed  and,  thus,  

aggrieved, the present special leave petition has been  

filed.

5. It  has  been  specifically  noted  by  the  High  Court  as  

follows:

“11. …  There  is  no  dispute  with  regard  to  the  loading and unloading of charcoal and the number  of gunny bags loaded and unloaded. It is also not  the case of the appellant that there was shortage  in the number of gunny bags unloaded. However,  the shortage is only with regard to the quantity of  charcoal  unloaded,  namely,  264  metric  tonnes.  Based on this, the claim is made by the appellant.  However, the claim of short delivery of charcoal is  based on the plea made by the consignee. Initially,  the  appellant  had  approached  the  Consumer  Forum  even  without  issuing  a  notice  to  the  respondent Railways in March, 1995. That is, the  goods  were  taken  delivery  by  the  consignee  on  25.09.1993;  the  appellant  had  approached  the  Consumer  Forum  after  a  period  of  nearly  1½  years; the proof for short delivery is only the plea  made by the consignee and that  plea has been  made by the consignee on 23.2.1995. If, actually,  there had been short delivery of goods, it is not  explained  as  to  what  prevented  the  consignee,  while taking delivery, from bringing it to the notice  of the Railway Authorities or what prevented the  appellant from taking immediate steps in regard  thereto. …”

(Emphasis supplied)

4

Page 5

6. There is also no case for the petitioner that the alleged  

short  delivery  was  verified  by  the  petitioner  in  its  

presence at the premise of the consignee. In any case,  

there is no case for the consignee before the Railways  

that  there was short  delivery.  The goods  were  taken  

delivery without any protest and there was never any  

representation  by  the  consignee  before  the  Railways  

that there was any short delivery. It was the petitioner  

(consignor) for the first time which made a claim before  

the Consumer Commission regarding the alleged short  

delivery after around 1½ years, based only on the plea  

of  the  consignee  made  after  more  than  one  year.  

Admittedly no notice was sent either by the consignee  

or by the consignor under Section 106 of the Railways  

Act,  1989 regarding the alleged short delivery before  

filing a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes  

Redressal  Commission,  after  1½  years  of  taking  

delivery.  It is also significant to note that the consignee  

did not have any protest with regard to the number of  

gunny bags or the alleged weight entered in the railway  

receipts,  at  the time of  delivery.   Certainly  the claim  

suffers from delay and laches.

5

Page 6

7. In such circumstances, we do not find any merit in this  

petition. Both, the Railway Claims Tribunal and the High  

Court have correctly appreciated the factual and legal  

position.  The  special  leave  petition  is  accordingly  

dismissed.

8. There is no order as to costs.

                                                                                                       …………….….. …………J.

                             (GYAN SUDHA  

MISRA)

                                                                                                                                                       .………….

………………J.             (KURIAN JOSEPH)

New Delhi; April 25, 2014.   

6