Gauhati High Court
MFA/252/2019 on 20 February, 2026
1
GAHC010242292019
2026:GAU-AS:2605
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MFA/252/2019
M/s Gajendra Raut,
Lokhra Road, Near Hanuman Mandir,
P.O. Lalganesh, Guwahati, Assam.
.....Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Union of India, Represented By the
General Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon,
Guwahati, Assam.
2. The Union of India,
Represented By the General Manager,
N.C. Railway, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.
......Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Divyansh Rathi,Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. B. Sharma, Advocate
Date of Hearing : 28.10.2025
Date of Judgment : 20.02.2026
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
MFA/252/2019 Page 1
2
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. D. Rathi, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard
Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Standing Counsel, N.F. Railways.
[2] This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,
1987 has been filed by the appellant, Shri Gajendra Raut,
impugning the judgment and order dated 14.08.2019, passed in
Original Application No. I-42/2013(Old) by the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, whereby, the claim filed by the present
appellant was dismissed.
[3] The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief,
are that the appellant had filed an Original Application before the
Railway Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,12,806/-
along with interest for non-delivery of 34 bags of Bonsum Dry,
weighing about 1,990 kgs, which was booked under Parcel Way Bill
No. 235260, dated 18.04.2013, from Dimapur to Kanpur Central,
under Transit Pass No.2937, the consignee had also obtained a
certificate, to that extent, for permission of extraction of Dalchini
(Cinnamonum), Bonsum Bark, under Liphanyan working scheme
areas, under Wokha Forest Division.
[4] When the aforesaid consignment was not delivered to the appellant,
he issued a notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 to
the General Manager, N.F. Railway, Guwahati, as well as to the
General Manager, N. C. Railway, stating that the consignment of 34
bags of Dry Bonsum weighing about 1990 kgs were not received by
MFA/252/2019 Page 2
3
the him at the destination station. However, when no response was
received by the appellant to the notice issued by him to the Railway
Authority, he approached the Railway Claims Tribunal by filing the
aforementioned Original Application claiming compensation of Rs.
1,12,806/- for non-delivery of the consignment booked by the
appellant.
[5] The said Original Application was registered as Original Application
No. I-42/2013 (Old) and OA (I)/GHY/2013/0033 (New). The present
appellant claiming to be the endorsee had also submitted an original
copy of affidavit cum letter of authority cum disclaimer certificate
dated 29.06.2013 from the original consignee, namely, Shri Jitendra
Srivastav along with the Original Application.
[6] The Railways (present appellant) contested the claim of the
appellant before the Railways Tribunal by filing a written statement
wherein, they challenged the locus standi of the present appellant
to file the Original Application. They have also taken the plea of
insufficiency of notice under Section 106 as well as defence of
Section 93 (d) of the Railways Act, 1989.
[7] On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Railway Claims
Tribunal framed following issues: –
1. Whether the case is properly verified, signed and filed?
2. Whether statutory legal notice under Section 106 of the
Railways Act, 1989 has been duly served?
3. Whether the claimant is entitled to the amount as
claimed on account of negligence, misconduct on behalf of
the Railways?
4. Relief?”
MFA/252/2019 Page 3
4[8] Ultimately, by judgment dated 14.08.2019, the Original Application
filed by the present appellant was dismissed by the Railway Claims
Tribunal. The aforesaid judgment has been impugned in this appeal.
[9] Mr. D. Rathi, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the present appellant is the endorsee of the railway receipt by
the original consignee and hence is entitled to file the Original
Application before the Claims Tribunal as well as the instant appeal.
He submits that on the back side of the Parcel Way Bill issued by
the respondent authorities, the original consignee has endorsed the
name of the present appellant as endorsee of the consignment. He
submits that in the memo of appeal, the word consignee and
endorsee has been used interchangeably.
[10] The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the consignment
of the dry Bonsum which was booked by Parcel Way Bill No.
235260, dated 18.04.2013, was not received at the destination
station on the due time. Thereafter, after waiting for about 3 (three)
months, the appellant had issued notice under Section 106 of the
Railways Act, 1989 to the railway authorities, raising the grievance
of non-delivery of the aforementioned consignment and requesting
the respondents for tracing all the goods booked by the consignee
and arranged for delivery of the same to the appellant after giving
due notice and intimation to him, however, the Railways Authority
did not pay any heed to the notice under Section 106 of the
Railways Act, 1989 issued by the appellant, which was received by
them on 02.07.2013.
MFA/252/2019 Page 4
5
[11] The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that after the
aforesaid letter, another letter was also issued by the appellant, on
05.09.2013, to the Railways Authorities claiming compensation for
non-delivery of the goods booked by him at the destination station.
However, no heed was paid to the letter submitted by the appellant.
The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the object
of issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 is
essentially to enable the railway administration to make an inquiry
and investigation as to whether the loss, destruction or deterioration
was due to the consignor or due to laches or the willful neglect of
railway authorities and its servants. He submits that another object
is to prevent stale and possibly dishonest claims, when owing to
delay it may be practically impossible to trace the transaction or
check the allegations made by the consignor. He submits that the
railway authorities were under an obligation, after receipt of the
notice issued by the appellant, to conduct an inquiry as to whether
there was any lapse on the part of railway administration. He further
submits that the railway administration was also under obligation to
inform the claimant as to the reason for non-delivery of the
consignment to the appellant.
[12] The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though, the
notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 was received by
railway authorities on 02.07.2013, however, nothing was informed to
the appellant regarding fate of his consignment. He submits that it
is only in the month of March’ 2018, when the railway authorities
filed written statement in the Original Application filed by the
MFA/252/2019 Page 5
6
appellant, he came to know that the consignment of the appellant
has been seized by the Forest Range Officers, Guwahati on the
platform No. 1 in front of GR police station and a seizure memo was
prepared on 21.04.2013.
[13] The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the railway
authorities never informed for five years after the aforesaid seizure
regarding the fate of the consignment to the appellant, even during
the pendency of the Original Application, before filing of the written
statement belatedly after five years in the year’ 2018. He submits
that though on 21.04.2013 itself, the Forest Range Officer, Guwahati
range had intimated the DCM, Guwahati railway station regarding
seizer of the consignment booked by the consignee for verification.
However, even after receipt of notice and after filing of the Original
Application, the appellant was not intimated about the fact that his
consignment is in the custody of Forest Range Officer, Guwahati
range.
[14] The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Parcel
Way Bill bearing No. 235260, itself mentions about the Transit Pass
No. 2937, dated 23.01.2013 issued in respect of the aforesaid
consignment by the forest department hence, there was no illegality
on transporting the aforementioned consignment. He submits that
since the consignment was accompanied with valid transit pass and
other documents. After verification by the forest department, the
Railways ought to have taken custody of the consignment and
ought to have forwarded it to the destination station and by not
MFA/252/2019 Page 6
7
doing so, it has acted in a negligent manner causing loss to the
present appellant.
[15] The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the railways after
seizure of the consignment by the forest department, in spite of
having a valid transit pass, have not informed the appellant about
such seizure for five years, and as such, it has failed to use
reasonable foresight and care in carriage of the goods as was
required under proviso to Section 93 of the Railways Act, 1989. The
learned counsel for the appellant submits that even if the
consignment has been seized under the legal process, it was
incumbent upon railway authorities to inform the appellant
regarding such seizure, as such, he submits that the railway is liable
to make good the loss suffered by appellant and these aspects were
not taken into consideration by the Railway Claims Tribunal in the
impugned judgment. As such, he submits that the impugned
judgment is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, the
learned counsel for the appellant, has cited following rulings:-
i. “Jetmuli Bhojraj Vs. Darjeeling Himalayan Railway Co.Ltd.,”
reported in “AIR 1962 SC 1879;”
ii. “Union of India Vs. M/Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.”
reported in “Manu / SC / 0235 / 2024.”
[16] On the other hand, Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Standing Counsel
Railways, appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the
Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati bench, has correctly dismissed
the claim made by the present appellant and there is no infirmity in
MFA/252/2019 Page 7
8
the said judgment to justify any interference by this court in this
appeal.
[17] He submits that the present appellant is neither a consigner, nor a
consignee, nor an assignee, nor an endorsee. However, he has filed
the Original Application, claiming himself to be the consignee of the
consignment in question. He submits that the consignee of the
consignment pass, one, Jitendra Srivastav. He further submits that
the Railway Authority is exempted from its liability to make good the
loss suffered by the present appellant as the consignment was
seized by the Forest Department under a legal process and the
provisions of Section 93 (d) of the Railways Act, 1989 comes to the
aid of the Railways Authorities.
[18] The learned Standing Counsel Railways submits that the Railway
Claims Tribunal has correctly considered these aspects in the
impugned judgment. He further submits that the Railway Authorities
have also not failed in taking reasonable care in carriage of the
goods. He submits that the Parcel Way Bill, which mentions about
the transit pass, was produced before the Forest Department by
railway authorities. He further submits that there was no error in the
impugned judgment and the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to
be dismissed.
[19] I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
both sides. I have also gone through the materials on record,
including the records of the Original Application, which was
requisitioned from the Railway Claims Tribunal. I have also gone
MFA/252/2019 Page 8
9
through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in
support of his submission.
[20] As regards the locus standi of the present appellant to file the
Original Application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati
bench as well as the instant appeal is concerned, on perusal of the
Parcel Way Bill bearing No. 235260, a copy of which is available on
the records of the Original Application, it appears that on the back
side of the said bill, there is an endorsement made “please deliver
goods to Shri Gajendra Raut.” The said endorsement has been
signed by Jitendra Srivastav on 29.06.2013, which makes it clear
that the present appellant is the endorsee of the aforesaid
consignment and therefore, he has the locus standi of approaching
the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 16 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987 to seek compensation due to non-delivery of the
aforementioned consignment to him at the destination station.
[21] As regard the notice issued by the appellant under Section 106 of
the Railways Act, 1989 is concerned, it appears that the said notice
has been received by railway authorities on 02.07.2013 as the seal
and signature of the receiver, on behalf of railways, is endorsed on
the body of the notice. Mere non mentioning of dairy number
therein would not draw an adverse inference regarding service of
such notice.
[22] The main contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is
that since the consignment has been seized by the Forest
Department of the Government of Assam for verification at
MFA/252/2019 Page 9
10
Guwahati and since such a seizure is a legal process as provided
under Section 93(d) of the Railways Act, 1989, the railway authority
cannot be made liable to pay any compensation for non delivery of
goods as has been held by the Railway Claims Tribunal in the
impugned judgment. Thus, the main question to be determined in
this appeal is whether the railway authorities are exempted from
liability to pay compensation to the appellant in view of the
provision contained in Section 93(d) of the Railways Act, 1989.
[23] Let us examine the issue.
[24] For the sake of convenience, Section 93 of the Railways Act, 1989 is
quoted herein below:-
“93. General responsibility of a railway administration as carrier
of goods. —
Save as otherwise provided in this Act, a railway administration
shall be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage or
deterioration in transit, or non-delivery of any consignment,
arising from any cause except the following, namely:–
(a)act of God;
(b)act of war;
(c)act of public enemies;
(d)arrest, restraint or seizure under legal process;
(e)orders or restrictions imposed by the Central Government or
a State Government or by an officer or authority subordinate to
the Central Government or a State Government authorised by it
in this behalf;
(f)act or omission or negligence of the consignor or the
consignee or the endorsee or the agent or servant of the
consignor or the consignee or the endorsee;
MFA/252/2019 Page 10
11
(g)natural deterioration or wastage in bulk or weight due to
inherent defect, quality or vice of the goods;
(h)latent defects;
(i)fire, explosion or any unforeseen risk:
Provided that even where such loss, destruction, damage,
deterioration or non-delivery is proved to have arisen from any
one or more of the aforesaid causes, the railway administration
shall not be relieved of its responsibility for the loss,
destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery unless the
railway administration further proves that it has used
reasonable foresight and care in the carriage of the goods.”
[25] On a bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it appears that the
railway administration may not be made responsible for non-delivery
of any consignment if such non-delivery is due to, inter alia, a
seizure under legal process as provided for in clause (d) of Section
93 of the Railways Act, 1989.However, if we carefully read the
proviso to Section 93, it appears that merely because of the fact
that such non-delivery is proved to have arisen from any of the
reasons mentioned in Section 93, including seizure under legal
process, the railway authorities cannot be absolved of its
responsibility to pay compensation unless it is able to prove that it
has used reasonable foresight and care in carriage of goods.
[26] In the instant case, it is clear from the evidence on record that
though the seizure of the consignment was made by the Forest
Department Assam, on 21.04.2013, and though the notice under
Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 was served on the
respondents on 02.07.2013, however, for five years i.e., till the filing
MFA/252/2019 Page 11
12
of the written statement by the railway authorities in the
aforementioned Original Application on 5th of March 2018, the
railways authorities had not intimated anything about seizure of the
aforesaid consignment, by the Forest Department, to the present
appellant or to the consignee or even to the consignor.
[27] One of the purpose of issuance of notice under Section 106 of the
Railways Act, 1989 is also to enable the railway authorities to
communicate the reason for non-delivery to the consigner
consignee or endorsee so that they may pursue the matter before
the appropriate authority and take appropriate step to get relief
even in case of a seizure under legal process. By not informing the
appellant or the consignee or the consignor, that the consignment
has been seized by the Forest Department, for a long period of 5
years, is certainly an act of willful negligence on the part of the
railway authorities resulting in the loss suffered by the appellant due
to non-delivery of aforementioned consignment at the destination
station. Had he been informed within reasonable period of time, he
could have pursued his cause before the Forest Department.
[28] In view of the discussions made and reasons stated in the foregoing
paragraphs, this court is of considered opinion that the respondent
authorities have failed to take reasonable foresight and care in
carriage of aforementioned consignment, therefore, they are not
exempted from the liability of compensating the appellant for the
loss suffered by him for non-delivery of the aforementioned
consignment.
MFA/252/2019 Page 12
13
[29] The respondent authorities are, therefore, liable to compensate the
appellant for the value of the goods which were not delivered to him
at the destination station. The respondents are accordingly directed
to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,12,806/- along with an interest @ of
9% per annum thereon from the date of filing of Original
Application, i.e. 01.11.2013 till realization.
[30] This appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
[31] Registry shall immediately send back the records of the Original
Application to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, along
with a copy of this judgment.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Digitally signed
Munm by Munmun
Boruah
un Date:
2026.02.21
Boruah 18:03:23
+05'30'
MFA/252/2019 Page 13
