The State of Bihar vs The Union of India and Others

Honorable Mr. Justice Shailesh Kumar Sinha

Both the appeals are directed against the common order dated 27th January, 2009 in Claims Tribunal Case Nos. OC 9700319 and OC 9700320 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ''Tribunal'') whereby the claims of the appellant against the short delivery/damage of the consignment was rejected primarily on the ground that the concerned Executive Engineer who filed the claim case could not produce the relevant documents to substantiate about his competency to file the claim application on behalf of the Water Resources Department of the State of Bihar. Secondly the claim application was rejected on the ground that the claimant could not file any documents to substantiate the averments made in the claim application. The short facts is that the appellant claimed damages on account of short delivery of cement against 12 railway receipts all dated 25th April, 1986 pertaining to 13,350 bags with total weight of 674.30 metric ton. The further case is that out of the aforesaid quantity the applicant received 6,870 bags of consignment in a damaged condition and after giving a notice on the Railway administration the claim applications were filed. The Railway administration appeared and filed the written statement denying the claim as also taking the stand that the applicant was not authorized to file the claim application. The Tribunal upon considering the objection of the Railway administration held that the applicant was not authorized to file the claim application. The claim application was accordingly dismissed on the aforesaid ground that the applicant, the concerned Executive Engineer, was not authorized to file the claim application.

Learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel No. 23 appearing for the State submits that the Tribunal rejected the claim application without considering the exhibited documents on record including the letter No. 3005 dated 23rd August, 1996 (Exhibit-A/3) whereby the applicant, the Executive Engineer, was authorized by the concerned department of the State of Bihar for filing the aforesaid claim application. It is further submitted that in the said claim application damage certificate was also filed which is marked as Exhibit-A. The Tribunal, however, without considering the evidence on the record specially the exhibited documents dismissed the claim application on merit. Learned counsel further submits that during the pendency of the claim application the Railway administration agreed to pay the claim to the tune of Rupees one lac fifty six thousand and odd, and as such, the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the claim application.

Mr. Anil Singh, Learned Counsel appearing for the Railway administration, on the other hand, submits that since the applicant was not authorized to file the claim application, the Tribunal was correct in dismissing the claim application.

Upon considering the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the claim application as also the documents brought on the record on behalf of the applicant, it would appear that the claimant had brought several documents which were exhibited in evidence, as such, Tribunal ought to have considered those exhibited documents and should have come to its own conclusion. On perusal of the order under appeal it does not appear that the Tribunal considered the documents brought on the record in support of the claim.

For the reasons and discussions made above, the order under appeal cannot be sustained in law. It is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for passing order afresh in both the claim application in accordance with law considering the exhibited documents brought on the record. Both the above appeals accordingly stand allowed as indicated above. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.