The main legal point established in the judgment is that the fulfillment of the conditions outlined in the circular dated 11-09-1998, including the requirement for an indent of 35 BCX wagons, is essential for availing the benefit of 'trainload class rate'.

SUMAN SHYAM, J.

1. Heard Ms. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. G. Goswami, learned standing counsel, N.F. Railways appearing for the respondent.

2. The judgment and order dated 19-04-2010 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT), Guwahati Bench, in Claim Application No. 152/2002(Old) OAIII/GHY/20020152(New), has been assailed by filing the present appeal.

3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, is that a consignment of rice was booked in 30 wagons from Pattabiram Military Siding (PTMS) to New Guwahati (NGC) complex. The present appellant was one of the consignees who was suppose to receive 05 wagons load of rice booked under R.R. No. 899408 dated 26/28-07-2000 which was delivered to it at the NGC station. After receiving the delivery of load, it appears that the appellant had raised certain claims regarding rebate or rate and also relaxation on account of excess distance, which claims were duly considered and allowed by the railway authorities. However, when its claim for "trainload basis rate" was not acceded to by the respondent, the appellant, as claimant, had filed the aforesaid O.A. which was rejected by the learned RCT by the impugned judgment and order dated 19-04-2010. Hence, this appeal.

4. Ms. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant has invited the attention of this Court to the judgment and order dated 17-12-2012 passed by the RCT, Guwahati Bench in Claim Application No. OA-III/GHY/202/341 (Old) OA341/02 to contend that as many as 30 wagons were booked by the same consignor, on the same day, out of which, 25 wagons under R.R. No. 899409 to 899413 dated 26/28-07-2000 were endorsed to one M/s Babulal Ramswarup Bajaj where as the remaining 05 wagons under R.R. No. 899408 dated 29/28-07-2000 were endorsed to the present appellant. M/s Babulal Ramswarup Bajaj had raised a similar claim for "trainload rate" in respect of those 25 wagons and the same was allowed by the learned RCT by the judgment and order dated 17-12-2012. The said order was thereafter implemented by the N.F. Railway authorities and payment of a sum of Rs. 1,15,705/- was made to the said claimant. Urging that uniformity be maintained in judicial orders involving similar claims, Ms. Sarma has prayed for passing a similar order in this case in the line of the order dated 17-12-2012 since the appellant herein is similarly situated as M/s Babulal Ramswarup Bajaj, the only difference being that the number of wagons endorsed to the appellant was 05 and the remaining 25 wagons carrying the same articles, were endorsed to the M/s Babulal Ramswarup Bajaj.

5. It is also the contention of Ms. Sarma that as per standing Railway Circulars, the minimum number of wagons required to be loaded for "Trainload rate" is 30. In the present case, since the number of wagons loaded in between the appellant and M/s Babulal Ramswarup Bajaj were 30 in total, hence, the consignment had qualified for trainload rate which, according to Mr. Sarma, was illegally denied to the appellant by the authorities and the claim of the appellant had also been erroneously rejected by the learned RCT.

6. Opposing the aforesaid arguments Mr. Goswami, learned standing counsel, N.F. Railways submits that the judgment and order dated 17-12-2012 has been passed in violation of the standing Railway Circular dated 11-09-1998. However, owing to an inadvertent error on the part of the some officials of the N.F. Railway, no appeal had been preferred against the said judgment and instead the amount was paid to the claimant , i.e. M/s Babulal Ramswarup Bajaj. It is the further contention of Mr. Goswami that since the prayer made by the appellant for train load rate is not maintainable under the standing railway circular, the mere fact that an erroneous judgment passed by the learned tribunal had been implemented out of mistake, cannot give rise to any enforceable right in favour of the appellant so as to seek a similar order from this Court.

7. I have considered the sub