The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur has dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India and Western Railway authorities, upholding an award of ₹9.93 lakh compensation in favour of Gujarat State Fertilizer and Chemical Limited.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, in an order dated January 23, 2026, found no error in the Railway Claims Tribunal’s decision that held the Railways responsible for damage caused to fertilizer bags during transit and storage.
Read also:- Sikkim High Court Closes NHM Transfer Dispute After Amicable Settlement Between Employee
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to September 1999, when 51,756 HDPE bags of DAP fertilizer were booked from Moti Khavdi to Gangapur City under six railway receipts. The consignment was booked at “Railway risk,” meaning the Railways were responsible for its safety until delivery.
According to the claim filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal, the fertilizer bags were unloaded in the open at Gangapur City on September 20, 1999. There was no covered shed. The goods were reportedly placed on uneven ground and later got soaked in rain, leading to substantial damage.
The company sought a joint inspection and preparation of a damage report, but alleged that the Railway authorities refused. It then approached the Tribunal seeking compensation.
In May 2012, the Tribunal allowed the claim and directed the Railways to pay ₹9,93,000 with 9% annual interest from the date of filing of the claim petition.
Read also:- Patna High Court Dismisses Plea for Compensation Over Alleged Illegal Detention, Flags Lapses
Railways’ Stand in Appeal
Challenging the Tribunal’s order before the High Court, the Railways argued that the claimant had itself unloaded the consignment without issuing any receipt. It was contended that if any damage occurred after delivery, the Railways could not be held liable.
The Railways also maintained that there was no delay in transport and that the goods were delivered under clear signatures without any remarks.
However, no one appeared on behalf of the claimant during the High Court hearing despite service of notice.
Court’s Observations
After examining the record, the High Court noted that the consignment had been booked at Railway risk. The judge observed that under Section 93 of the Railways Act, 1989, the Railway Administration is responsible for loss or damage during transit or non-delivery.
Read also:- Madras High Court Rules Grandparents Not ‘Family’ for Stamp Duty Concession in Settlement Deeds
“The burden lies upon the Railways to prove that they had used reasonable foresight and care to protect the goods,” the court observed. It found that no evidence had been produced to show that adequate care was taken.
The court pointed out that once the goods reached Gangapur City, they remained under the control and supervision of the Railways. If there was no covered shed available, it was the duty of the Railway Administration to provide protection such as tarpaulin sheets.
Justice Dhand noted, “The appellants have not made any special efforts to protect the goods… This shows utmost carelessness and negligence on the part of the appellant-Railways.”
The court also rejected the argument that the claimant had unloaded the goods on its own. It stated that a proper system exists under the Railways Act for booking and delivery of consignments, and no proof was shown that delivery had been lawfully completed before the damage occurred.
Importantly, the court found that the Railways had not produced evidence to show that there was no rainfall on the relevant day or that the goods were booked at the claimant’s risk.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Sends 17-Year-Old Girl to Mehsana Children Home After She Refuses to Return
Decision
Finding no flaw in the Tribunal’s factual findings, the High Court held that the Railway Administration remained responsible for the goods even after termination of transit until proper delivery.
“This Court finds no merit and substance in this appeal and does not find any error in the impugned judgment,” the order stated.
The civil miscellaneous appeal was accordingly disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications were also dismissed. The court directed that the record be sent back to the Tribunal for execution of the award and that a copy of the order be sent to the claimant for information.
Case Title: Union of India & Anr. vs. Gujarat State Fertilizer and Chemical Limited
Case No.: S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4253/2012
Decision Date: 23 January 2026
