SHREE SHYAM AGENCY versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: [2012] 9 S.C.R. 805 · Decided: 18-10-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 9 S.C.R. 805 
SHREE SHYAM AGENCY 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal .No. 7589 of 2012) 
OCTOBER 18, 2012 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987: 
A 
B 
ss. 13(1) and 16 - Claim petition - lmpleadment of parties c 
- Consignment booked under "Self" basis - Delivered to a third 
party without authority - Claim petition by consigner against 
Railways claiming value· of goods for non-delivery -
Applications for impleadment by appellant claiming to be an 
interested party - Application for impleadment of three other 0 
persons - Held: In the claim petition what the Tribunal has to 
inquire into and determine is the claim against the Railway 
Administration for its fault in discharging its responsibilities 
under the Railways Act, Rules and Regulations and not the 
inter se disputes between the claimants and third parties -
E 
There is no error in the order of the Tribunal rejecting the 
application for impleadment and the High Court rightly 
affirmed the order - Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - ss. 
16, 18 - Railways Act, 1989 - ss. 65 and 7 4 - Railways (Manner 
of Delivery of Consignments and Sale Proceeds in the 
Absence of Railway Receipt), Rules, 1990 - Railway Claims 
Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989. 
F 
The claimant-respondent no. 3, a company having its 
head office at Chennai was engaged in the business of 
manufacture and sale of white crystal sugar. It was the 
G 
case of the claimant that a dealer, namely, 'SAK' placed 
an order with the claimant for purchase of free sale sugar 
with payment conditions stipulating that the endorsed 
railway receipts would be released on receipt of entire 
805 
H 
806 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 
A sale consideration; that the claimant booked the 
consignment on 1.2.201 O for transportation from 
Kumbakonam to Fatuha, Bihar and that the railway 
receipts were drawn as "Self' and were in the custody 
of the claimant and that the purchaser was expected to 
B remit the sale price and get the railway receipts endorsed 
in its favour. The goods reached the destination on 
10.2.1010. The buyer failed to pay the sale price and the 
goods, as stated by the appellant, were kept at the railway 
godown incurring wharfage charges; that the claimant 
C sent a lettei to the Senior DGM/Southern Railway/Trichy 
on 23.4.2010 and informed that the railway receipts were 
in the custody of the claimant and requested either to 
shift the consignment to other destination or bring it back 
to Kumbakonam. The claimant was, however, informed 
0 on 4.5.2010 by the Railways that the consignment was 
delivered at Fatuha on 10.2.2010 on the strength of 
Indemnity Note without disclosing the person to whom 
it was delivered. The claimant-respondent no. 3 filed a 
claim petition bearing OA No. (1) 2 of 2010, against the 
Southern and Eastern Central Railways before the 
E Railway Claims Tribunal stating that since the 
consignments were booked under "Self" basis, the 
delivery to a third party was without authority and 
amounted 
to 
negligence, 
misconduct 
and 
misappropriation 
and, 
therefore, 
the 
Railway 
F Administration was legally liable to pay compensation 
being the value of the goods for non-delivery. 
In the claim petition, the appellant filed I.A. 3/2011 for 
intervention claiming that it was an interested party and 
G its presence was necessary for a proper adjudication of 
the claim. l.A.4/2011 was preferred by respondent no. 2, 
the Central Railway, to implead three other parties 
contending that the Railway Claims Tribunal had no 
jurisdiction to proceed with the case since it involved 
H contractual disputes, criminal conspiracy, cheating and 
SHREE SHYAM AGENCY v. UNION OF INDIA 
807 
that a complaint filed by the said parties was pending A 
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Tribunal 
dismissed both the applications holding that inter se 
disputes between private parties could not be decided by 
the Tribunal in a claim petition. The revision petitions filed 
by the appellant and the Railways were dismissed by the 
B 
High Court. 
In the instant appeal the question for consideration 
before the Court was: whether the appellant was legally 
entitled to intervene in a claim petition filed by respondent C 
no. 3 u/s 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It is evident from the preamble that the 
Claims Tribunal has been established under the Tribunal 
0 
Act, 1987

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.