The main legal point established in the judgment is that the offeree must protest the conditions attached to the offer before encashment of the cheque, and the burden of proof lies on the offeree to show that their conduct does not amount to acceptance of the conditions. The court emphasized the importance of protest letters and the offeree's conduct in accepting or rejecting the conditions attached to the offer.

B.P. Katakey, J.

1. These appeals under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (in short, 1987 Act) by the Union of India represented by the General Manager, N.F. Railways, are directed against the judgments and orders passed by the learned Member, Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati directing the railways authority to pay compensation with interest for the loss sustained by the Respondents due to short delivery of the consignment carried by the Railways. The appeals having arisen out of a common question of law, are taken up together for hearing and disposal, as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The Respondents herein filed applications before the learned Tribunal under Section 16 of the 1987 Act claiming compensation for short delivery of commodities carried by the railways under different invoices and railway receipts under railway risk rates, contending negligence and misconduct on the part of the railways, claims for which, according to the Respondents, were not settled by the railway administration, in spite of service of notices issued under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 (in short the 1989 Act). The railway administration contested the proceedings, amongst Ors., on the ground that after receipt of the notices under Section 106 of the Act, it has verified the claims and having ascertained the amount to which the Respondents are entitled to, paid the same by cheque with the condition that in case offer is not acceptable, the cheques should be returned and the retention and encashment of the cheques would be treated as acceptance of the amounts under the cheques as the full and final satisfaction of their claims. The stand of the railway before the learned Tribunal was that since cheques were retained and encashed by the Respondents, it amounts to acceptance of the condition by conduct and hence the Respondents cannot claim any further amount, even in cases where before encashment the Respondents protested and intimated the railway administration about such protest.

3. The learned Tribunal, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Bhagawati Prasad Pawan Kumar v. Union of India (2006) 5 SCC 311, directed payment of compensation with interest to the Respondents without, however, recording any finding as to whether the action of the Respondents in retaining and encashing the cheques amounts to acceptance of the condition, attached to the offer, by conduct.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants as well as the learned Counsel for the Respondents.

5. The learned Counsel for the Appellants referring to the conditions imposed by the letters by which the cheques were sent to the Respondents towards full and final satisfaction of the claims has submitted that since the Respondents were specifically informed by the said communications that in case the cheques are retained and encashed by them, the same would be treated as acceptance of the amounts towards full and final satisfaction of the claims, they cannot claim any further amount as the cheques have been retained and encashed by the Respondents. It has further been submitted by the learned Counsel that the Respondents, in the cases where cheques were received after initiation of the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, having not obtained any permission from the learned Tribunal prior to encashment of the cheques, they by conduct have accepted the conditions under which the cheques were issued by the railway administration and therefore cannot claim any further amount after the cheques were encashed. Referring to the protest letters wherever issued and were filed before the learned Tribunal by the Respondents, it has been submitted that the cheques having been issued with certain conditions the respondents as soon as encashed the cheque, by conduct have accepted such condition. According to the learned Counsel if the Respondents were not satisfied with the amount offered to it, the cheques ought to