Authority: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 16 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: M/S Bajaj Trading Company (appellant) vs Union of India (respondent).
  • Background: Shipment of 40,444 bags of salt from Chirai Junction, Gujarat to Dharmanagar, Assam on 10 Nov 2009; only 38,702 bags delivered, shortage of 1,742 bags.
  • Railway issued Shortage Certificate No. 82/77/57 dated 19 Mar 2010; claim notice filed 6 Apr 2010 for Rs 3,48,400 at Rs 200 per bag.
  • Earlier rejections by Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) Guwahati (order 3 Sep 2012) and Gauhati High Court (judgment 17 Dec 2024); statutory appeal MFA No.1/2013 dismissed.
  • Appellant argued liability under Section 93 Railways Act 1989 and Section 97 despite “owner’s risk” booking; contended loading should be supervised by Goods Clerk per Rule 1512.
  • Respondent argued Shortage Certificate not admission; burden of proof under Section 65(2) rests on consignor/consignee; Sections 93 and 97 do not apply to owner’s risk shipments without negligence.

Legal Reasoning

  • Court examined Sections 93, 97, 99 of the Railways Act 1989 and Rule 1811 “said to contain” receipts.
  • Non‑obstante clause in Section 97 overrides general liability of Section 93 for owner’s risk shipments; liability only if negligence or misconduct proved.
  • Burden of proof on appellant to show railway’s duty of care and negligence; appellant failed to produce evidence of loading supervision or weight verification.
  • References to precedents (e.g., Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, A.G. Varadarajulu v. State of T.N., Jay Laxmi Salt Works v. State of Gujarat) reaffirmed interpretation of non‑obstante clauses and duty of care.
  • Court concluded no negligence established; therefore railway not liable.

Final Outcome

  • Appeal dismissed; no relief granted to Bajaj Trading Company.
  • Any pending applications stand disposed of.

Topics: Railway Liability, Transport Claim