It is
a food product – “rice” and obviously, an year in a railway wagon – it would no
longer be edible ! and perhaps should be dumped and destroyed. This being
Government rice [of Food Corporation] – there would be no insurance angle, and
perhaps the episode would die a natural death.
Had it been of any individual or a Firm, they would have suffered the
loss arising out of non-delivery [for more than a reasonable period and
suddenly appearing !] – they would have claimed from their Cargo Insurers, who
would have insisted on certification by Railways / surrender of the original
Railway receipt.
In terms of section
93 of the Railways Act, 1989, a railway administration is responsible for
the loss, destruction, damage,
deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods delivered to the
administration for carriage by railway
arising from any cause except the
following causes :- 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 any officer or
authority subordinate to the Central Government or a State Government
authorized in this behalf; f. act or omission or negligence of the consignor or
the consignee or the endorsee or the
agent of servant of the consignor or consignee or the endorsee; g. natural
deterioration or wastage in bulk or
weight due to inherent defect, quality
or vice of the goods; h. latent defects,
and i. fire, explosion or any
unforeseen risk.
However for
determining liability of Railways of
loss, destruction, damage, deterioration, or non-delivery, Railway
Administration can seek protection from liability for compensation if they can
prove that they have used reasonable foresight and care in the
carriage of the animals or goods.
Again, whether the
consignment was declared to Railways and extra freight paid needs to be looked
into. If the consignment was carried at ‘Owner’s
risk’ – then Railway is only bailee and would have greater impunity. Another interesting dimension is that in
respect of ‘ delay in transit ‘ under Sec 95 of Railways Act, 1989, the railway
administration shall not be responsible for loss, destruction, damage or
deterioration of any consignment proved by the owner to have been caused by
delay or detention in their carriage, if the railway administration proves that
delay or detention arose for reasons beyond its control or without negligence
or misconduct on the part of the railway administration or any of its servants.
This case
would defy logic – yet !! – what is your take on the given circumstance ?
With regards – S.
Sampathkumar
Sat, 18th July 2015. Photo credit : The Hindu.
