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% Pâ‚‚Oâ‚…) 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)