'The goods were discussed at their risk', the Railways cannot run away from its responsibility by saying it; Supreme Court has ordered compensation - Railways cannot release its responsibility by saying

The most important thing is to be believed that the railways refuse to weigh again, which is a legal right, a serious decline. This proves negligence of the railway and the railway must be compensated on this basis. Dayanand Sharma, Chandigarh. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while solving the responsibility of the railway department about the incidents of iron stolen during railway transport, made it clear that if the goods were stolen and the negligence of the railroad reflected, the department could not escape the compensation. The court also said that only to say that the goods were discussed on the ‘owner risk’ cannot free the railroad from its responsibility. This decision was expressed by Justice Pankaj Jain about the petition filed by Steel Authority of India Limited and Indian Iron & Steel Company Limited against the old decision of the Railway Eistribunal. The case is about 34 years old and began in the early 1990s. What was the matter? Steel businesses sent Visakhapatnam to Goraya in the Jalandhar district Punjab. Generally, this trip should have been completed within six to eight days, but the railway coaches remained stranded for a month. When the consignment reached the destination, there was a huge shortage of it. Companies suspected that goods were stolen on the way. As a result of this suspicion, companies have demanded the railroad to reinforce the consignment, which is their legal right in terms of Article 79 of the Railway Act. But the railways repeatedly rejected this request. The companies then appointed an independent surveyor, confirming that there was a large decline in the consignment. Nevertheless, the Railway Tribunal rejected these claims on technical grounds. The tribunal said that the businesses did not submit a petition by a valid representative, and that the Railways were not notified in terms of section 106. The Supreme Court has completely rejected all these technical objections. Justice Pankaj Jain said that the petition was filed by an authorized officer, the regional manager (legal) of the companies, based on the proper proposal of the council. At the same time, the court acknowledged that the railroad was properly notified and that an affidavit was also submitted in support of it. The Railways provided no evidence to prove it wrong. The court also said that the way the tribunal rejected these claims on technical grounds was unfair and justice defective. The court, referring to Articles 79, 93 and 94 of the Railway Act, said that once the railroad takes a consignment under its control, whether it is loaded from the private pavement, then the railroad is responsible for its loss. The most important thing is to be believed that the railways refuse to weigh again, which is a legal right, a serious decline. This proves negligence of the railway and the railway must be compensated on this basis. The court ordered the two request companies to compensate for full loss at a rate of seven percent annual interest, which will apply from the date the petition was filed on the actual payment.