Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.P. Katakey

1. These appeals, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, are directed against the common order dated 10.08.2001 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati, in Claim Application Nos.787/1994, 788/1994, 789/1994, 791/1994, 792/1994, 793/1994 and 794/1994, rejecting the claim for refund of the excess freight charged from the appellants by the respondent railway for carriage of the goods booked by the appellants. Since all the claim applications were rejected by the common order and the common question of law is involved, the appeals are taken up together for hearing and disposal as agreed to by the learned counsel for the appearing parties. The appellants filed the aforesaid claim applications before the Tribunal claiming refund of the freight contending inter alia that certain goods were booked for transportation by railway from one station to another, for which the freight was charged for a distance between the booking station and the destination station through the longer route, though carried in a shorter route and as such they are entitled to refund of the proportionate freight.

2. In CA Nos.787/1994, 788/1994, 789/1994, 791/1994, 792/1994, 793/1994, 794/1994 and 795/1994 the claim of the appellants before the Tribunal was for refund of the freight amounting to Rs. 57,750/-, Rs. 53,130/-, Rs. 51,612/-, 59,145/-, Rs. 48,576/-, Rs. 48,576/-, Rs. 48,576/- and Rs. 48,576/-, respectively. The contention of the appellants was that the bamboo cuts were booked by different railway receipts on different dates for transportation by the railway from New Bongaigaon to Amlai, for which though the railway has charged the freight taking distance between the two stations as 1769 km via MLDT/DKAE, which is a longer route, the goods were transported from New Bongaigaon to Amlai through a shorter route via Andal-Anara-Chakradharpur covering the distance of 1510 km and as such they are entitled to refund of the excess freight charged by the railway for transportation of the aforesaid goods.

3. The contention of the railway in the written statement filed before the Tribunal was that the freight for transportation of the aforesaid goods from New Bongaigaon to Amlai was charged under classification 145 @Rs.67.40 per quintal under the provision of 'station to station rate', as empowered by Section 32(a) of the Railways Act, 1989 (in short the 1989 Act) and hence the appellants cannot claim refund of the freight, on the ground that though the freight was charged on the basis of the distance to be travelled between the two stations through a longer route, the goods were carried by a shorter route. The Tribunal has rejected the applications filed by the appellants claiming refund of the proportionate rate by accepting the contention of the railway and hence the present appeals.

4. I have heard Mr. A.D. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent railway. I have also perused the orders passed by the Tribunal apart from the materials made available by the parties in the appeals.

5. It has been submitted by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants that under Rule 125(1) of the Goods Tariff Rules, 1992 (in short the 1992 Rules), the Railway Administration is obliged to carry the goods from one station to another through the shortest route, in the absence of any specific instruction in writing from the sender or his authorized agent to the contrary and at the charge by the cheapest route i.e. the route by which the freight charges are at the lowest. In the instant cases, since the railway admittedly did not carry the goods from New Bongaigaon to Amlai through the available shortest route at the charges by the cheapest route and instead carried the goods by a longer route by charging the freight accordingly, having regard to the distance to be covered in the longer route, there is infraction of Rule 125(1) of t