M/S Rajasthan State Mines And vs Union Of India (2026:Rj-Jp:15767) on 16 April, 2026

Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur

M/S Rajasthan State Mines And vs Union Of India (2026:Rj-Jp:15767) on 16 April, 2026

[2026:RJ-JP:15767]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2509/2006

M/s Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited (A Government
of Rajasthan Enterprises), having its Corporate Office at 4-Meera
Marg, Udaipur and registered Office at C-89-90, Janpath, Lal
Kothi Scheme, Jaipur through, Shri M.S. Khamesra, Sr. Manager
(QCM)

                                                          ----Appellant/Claimant
                                     Versus
Union Of India, Through General Manager, Western Railway,
Church Gate, Mumbai
                                               ----Respondent/Non-Claimant

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajay Shukla along with
Ms. Jyoti Sharma &
Mr. Shivam Sharma
Mr. Amit Suroliya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandershekhar Sinha (CGC) with
Mr. D.W. Yadav

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment
Date of hearing and conclusion of arguments 06.04.2026
Date on which the judgment was reserved 06.04.2026
Whether the full judgment or only the operative Full Judgment
part is pronounced
Date of pronouncement 16.04.2026

1. The present appeal was filed by delay and therefore, notices

on application under Section 5 of the limitation Act, 1963 were

issued on 02.11.2006. After service, the matter was admitted on

06.12.2017 and the record was called upon after 11 years. The

Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘learned Tribunal’) informed that the record

(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 07:44:43 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 06:22:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15767] (2 of 8) [CMA-2509/2006]

pertaining to the matter has been destroyed on 13.03.2015.

Thereafter, the parties were directed by this Court to produce

record, whatsoever is available with them, but none have

produced any record. Thus, on 06.04.2026, with consent of both

the parties, the appeal was heard finally and the order was

reserved.

2. The present civil misc. appeal has been preferred assailing

the order dated 13.02.2006, passed by learned Railway Claims

Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, in OA-I-17’A’/2002, whereby the claim

petition filed by the applicant-appellant under Section 16 of the

Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the

‘Act of 1987’), was dismissed.

3. Briefly stated, the applicant-appellant, Rajasthan State Mines

& Minerals Limited, dispatched one consignment of 900.700 MT of

Rock Phosphate (containing 31.5% P₂O₅) from Umra Railway

Station to Shambhupura Railway siding on 12.02.2001. During

transit, two BCK wagons (Nos. NE/39780 and NF/21943), carrying

37.4 MT and 37.7 MT respectively were derailed near Diamond

Crossing, Ordi Village, District Chittorgarh. The Railway

Administration unloaded the material at Shambhupura Railway

Station at the ends of the plot.

3.1 The applicant-appellant submitted the Railway Receipt. On

26.02.2001, the Station Superintendent, Shambhupura, asked the

applicant-appellant to take delivery of the goods. The applicant-

appellant refused, stating that a commercial quality had been lost

and the remaining material had deteriorated, rendering it

unusable, and sought compensation of Rs. 1,55,135/-.

(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 07:44:43 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 06:22:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15767] (3 of 8) [CMA-2509/2006]

3.2 On 28.05.2001, the Divisional Commercial Manager, Ratlam,

again requested the applicant-appellant to take delivery. The

applicant-appellant reiterated its stand. Upon request, the

applicant-appellant submitted the required documents on

17.08.2001.

3.3 Subsequently, by letter dated 28.11.2001, the Chief

Commercial Manager informed the applicant-appellant that the

material had reached the destination and was lying at

Shambhupura Station. The applicant-appellant again asserted that

the material was contaminated and unusable, and thereafter filed

a claim petition under Section 16 of the Act of 1987.

4. The respondent Railway, in its reply, contended that the

applicant-appellant had repeatedly refused to take delivery despite

being informed that the goods were not contaminated. It further

denied liability for the derailment and asserted that no

compensation was payable.

5. The learned Tribunal, after hearing both parties, framed four

issues and decided all of them against the applicant-appellant. It

held that there was no evidence to prove that Rock Phosphate lost

its properties due to such incident and that the applicant-appellant

unreasonably refused to take delivery, thereby contributing to its

own loss. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed.

6. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13.02.2006, the

applicant-appellant preferred the present civil misc. appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

impugned order is ex-facie illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of

law as the same suffers from error that are apparent on record.

7.1 Learned counsel for appellant argued that the learned

(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 07:44:43 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 06:22:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15767] (4 of 8) [CMA-2509/2006]

Tribunal erred while arriving at the finding that the appellant failed

to prove that the goods lost their commercial value at the time of

derailment as the appellant had produced the test reports of the

samples of the goods before the learned Tribunal which clearly

showed the difference of the properties of the chemical

composition of the goods. The goods were examined time and

again and in each of the report it was found that there was a

substantial difference in the composition of the goods which was

sufficient enough to make it non-marketable and not fit for

commercial use.

7.2. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the

Rock Phosphate is used for the purpose of the fertilizer and any

minute discrepancy in the property of the good could result into

the degradation of the fertilizer and the same could degrade the

crop and would also lower down the marketability and the

commercial value. Thus, the appellant was justified while not

taking the delivery of the consignment and were able to duly

establish the fact that there was a change in the property of the

goods because of the derailment.

7.3 Learned counsel for the appellant contended that it was

observed by the learned Tribunal that the appellant has not

disclosed the properties to the respondent Railway at the time of

loading of the consignment. Contrarily, as per the rule there was

no requirement for the appellant to advance the properties of the

goods to the respondent as at the time of the booking of the

consignment; it was evident that the fertilizer is a good of

perishable nature and is very likely to loose its very nature if there

(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 07:44:43 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 06:22:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15767] (5 of 8) [CMA-2509/2006]

is any change in the weather or improper unloading of the

material.

7.4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that it

was the duty of the Railway to deliver the goods at the destination

in safe and sound condition. Furthermore, the derailment of the

train is due to the negligence of the respondent which resulted in

loss to the appellant. Even no care was taken to preserve the

consignment because of which the consigned goods were mixed

with the local soil and as a consequence lost its real properties

rendering it unfit for use. Hence, he prayed that the present civil

misc. appeal be allowed and the impugned order be quashed and

set aside.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted

that even though the derailment of two BCK Wagons near the

Shambhupura Railway Station is admitted, the respondent is not

responsible for the derailment per-se, unless the negligence is

proved. Further, no evidence has been produced by the applicant-

appellant to establish negligence on part of the Railway

Administration.

8.1. The appellant was time and again asked to receive the

delivery of the consignment and unload the wagon at their own

plot but the applicant-appellant refused to do so and thus, the

same was done nearby the appellant’s plot. Thus, any subsequent

deterioration, if at all, is attributable to the appellant’s own

conduct and delay and not the respondent.

8.2. Furthermore, learned counsel for the respondent submitted

that the railway receipt clearly stipulated that the consignment

contained loose Rock Phosphate and the wagons were directly

(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 07:44:43 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 06:22:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15767] (6 of 8) [CMA-2509/2006]

loaded from plots. Even the quantity and quality were not

supervised by the Railway Staff. Therefore, the respondent cannot

be held liable for any alleged deficiency in the quality as the risk

remained with the consignor.

8.3. Learned counsel for the respondent specifically pleaded that

the applicant-appellant was duly called upon to take the delivery

of the consignment. However, the appellant refused to accept the

delivery, thereby contributing to any alleged loss. Thus, as is the

settled principle of law, a party cannot take advantage of its own

refusal or default.

8.4 Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that as

per Section 93(G) of the Railways Act, 1989, the respondent is not

liable in cases falling within statutory exceptions. The burden to

prove contamination, loss of value and railway negligence is on

the appellant but it has completely failed to do so, thus making

the claim legally untenable.

8.5. Learned counsel for the respondent thus prayed that the

present civil misc. appeal be kindly dismissed and the order

passed by the learned Tribunal be upheld.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

10. The primary question that arises is whether the appellant has

been able to establish that the goods were contaminated during

transit and that such contamination was attributable to the

negligence of the Railway Administration.

11. A bare perusal of the record reveals that the appellant has

relied upon certain test reports to demonstrate that there was a

change in the chemical composition of the Rock Phosphate.

(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 07:44:43 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 06:22:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15767] (7 of 8) [CMA-2509/2006]

However, upon careful examination, this Court is of the staunch

opinion that the appellant has not been able to establish that the

test report dated 12.02.2001 was carried out in the presence of

the Railway Authority. Further there is no justifiable reason for the

appellant to refuse the acceptance of delivery of the consignment

even after the request of the Railway on 26.02.2001.

12. Subsequently, test report dated 27.04.2002, i.e. test

conducted after more than 14 months from the date of loading

and after 12 months from the date of refusal to take delivery,

cannot be made basis as the appellant has failed to demonstrate

any justifiable reason for not taking the delivery. The perusal of

the two reports do not indicate much changes in the properties of

the consignment as recorded by the learned Tribunal. Even

otherwise the appellant could not have refused to take the

delivery as in case of failure in taking delivery, the provision of

Section 84 of the Act of 1987 comes into play which governs the

cases of unclaimed consignments.

13. This Court further finds that the appellant was repeatedly

called upon by the Railway Authorities to take delivery of the

goods. Despite such communications, the appellant chose not to

accept the consignment. Even if it is assumed that some portion of

the goods had been affected, the appellant was under an

obligation to mitigate the loss by accepting the delivery and taking

appropriate steps thereafter. The refusal to take delivery, without

insisting upon a joint inspection or proper assessment, has

contributed to the alleged loss and dis-entitled the appellant from

claiming compensation on that ground.

(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 07:44:43 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 06:22:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15767] (8 of 8) [CMA-2509/2006]

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the appellant has failed to prove that the

goods were rendered unfit due to contamination during transit or

that such damage was caused due to negligence of the Railway

Administration. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are

based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from

any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court.

15. Accordingly, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is

dismissed, and the order dated 13.02.2006 passed by the

learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, is affirmed.

16. No order as to costs.

17. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(BIPIN GUPTA),J

Sudha/

(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 07:44:43 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 06:22:39 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)