Seizure Under Legal Process Is Not A Blanket Immunity: Gauhati High Court Holds Railways Must Prove ‘Reasonable Foresight and Care’ Under Section 93

“Five Years’ Silence After Statutory Notice Is Willful Negligence” – In a significant pronouncement on the liability of the Railways as a statutory carrier, the Gauhati High Court categorically held that mere seizure of goods under legal process does not automatically absolve the railway administration of responsibility.

Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita, allowing the appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, set aside the Tribunal’s order dismissing the claim and ruled that the Railways failed to establish that they had exercised “reasonable foresight and care” as mandated under the proviso to Section 93 of the Railways Act, 1989. The Court directed payment of Rs. 1,12,806/- along with 9% interest per annum from 01.11.2013 till realization.

The ruling reinforces that statutory exemptions under Section 93(d) cannot be invoked mechanically and that the burden squarely lies upon the Railways to prove due diligence.

Non-Delivery Of 34 Bags Of Bonsum And A Five-Year Silence

The appellant had booked 34 bags of Dry Bonsum weighing about 1990 kgs from Dimapur to Kanpur Central under Parcel Way Bill No. 235260 dated 18.04.2013. The consignment was supported by Transit Pass No. 2937 issued by the Forest Department.

When the goods were not delivered at the destination, the appellant served notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act on 02.07.2013. Despite receipt of the notice, the Railways did not disclose the fate of the consignment. The appellant was compelled to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation.

Only in March 2018, through the written statement filed before the Tribunal, did the appellant learn that the goods had been seized by the Forest Department on 21.04.2013 at Guwahati.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim accepting the Railways’ defence under Section 93(d). The High Court was thus called upon to determine whether seizure under legal process completely insulated the Railways from liability.

“Endorsement Confers Right” – Endorsee Held Competent To Maintain Claim

Rejecting the objection regarding locus standi, the Court examined the Parcel Way Bill and noted the endorsement on its reverse side stating “please deliver goods to Shri Gajendra Raut,” signed by the original consignee.

The Court held that such endorsement made the appellant the lawful endorsee of the consignment, thereby entitling him to approach the Tribunal under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act.

“Mere Absence Of Diary Number Does Not Invalidate Notice” – Section 106 Compliance Upheld

On the issue of statutory notice, the Court observed that the notice under Section 106 bore the seal and signature of the receiving authority dated 02.07.2013. The Railways’ contention regarding absence of diary number was rejected.

The Court clarified that “mere non mentioning of dairy number therein would not draw an adverse inference regarding service of such notice.” The object of Section 106, the Court emphasized, is to enable inquiry and investigation by the railway administration.

“Section 93(d) Is Subject To The Proviso” – Exemption Not Automatic

The core legal issue revolved around Section 93(d) of the Railways Act, which exempts the railway administration from liability in cases of “arrest, restraint or seizure under legal process.”

However, the Court carefully read the proviso to Section 93, which states that even where loss arises from such causes, the railway administration shall not be relieved unless it further proves that it “has used reasonable foresight and care in the carriage of the goods.”

Justice Kalita observed that statutory immunity under clause (d) cannot be treated as absolute. The Railways must discharge the burden of proving due care.

“Purpose Of Section 106 Is To Enable Communication” – Non-Disclosure Held Fatal

The Court made a strong observation on the failure of the Railways to communicate the seizure to the appellant for five years.

It held:

“One of the purpose of issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 is also to enable the railway authorities to communicate the reason for non-delivery to the consignor consignee or endorsee so that they may pursue the matter before the appropriate authority.”

The Court further remarked:

“By not informing the appellant… that the consignment has been seized by the Forest Department, for a long period of 5 years, is certainly an act of willful negligence on the part of the railway authorities.”

The judgment emphasizes that had the appellant been informed within a reasonable time, he could have approached the Forest Department for redressal. The prolonged silence deprived him of that opportunity and amounted to failure of reasonable foresight and care.

Liability Fastened – Compensation With Interest Awarded

Holding that the Railways failed to satisfy the requirement of the proviso to Section 93, the Court concluded that they were not entitled to exemption under Section 93(d). Consequently, the Court directed payment of Rs. 1,12,806/- along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 01.11.2013, till realization.

The judgment dated 14.08.2019 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Accountability Beyond Technical Defences

This ruling sends a clear message that statutory carriers cannot rely on technical defences without demonstrating diligence. “Seizure under legal process” does not operate as an automatic shield. The obligation to act with “reasonable foresight and care” includes timely communication to the affected party.

By treating prolonged non-disclosure as “willful negligence,” the Gauhati High Court has strengthened the rights of consignors and endorsees and reaffirmed the principle that exemptions under liability statutes must be strictly construed.

Date of Decision: 20/02/2026