IMPORTANT POINT
The Railway Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction over claims where freight is paid, and terminal charges cannot be collected for consignments delivered to private sidings.

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

Heard Mr. B.N. Gogoi, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This application has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against the impugned Order dated 05.05.2016, passed by the learned Member (Judicial) of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, in Claim Application No. OA/III/127/2015 (Old)/Claim Application No.OA/III/Ghy/2015/0127 (New), wherein, the claims of the present respondent/applicant were allowed, and an amount of Rs. 51,00,252/- (Rupees Fifty-One Lakhs Two Hundred Fifty-Two) was awarded, along with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of booking, i.e., 01.03.2013, until the date of this order, to be disbursed through ECS upon providing bank account details. Additionally, it was directed that a proportionate application fee of Rs. 27,967/- and a Legal Practitioner’s fee of Rs. 3,000/- be paid.

3. The brief facts of the case is that total 50 train load of petroleum products, including HSD and SKO, were transported from Numaligarh Refinery Oil Siding (hereinafter ‘NRSR’), Rangapani (RNI) to Budge-Budge on different dates from 11.09.2012 to 01.03.2013, according to the forwarding note executed by the consignor to the Railway Administration for carriage. The present respondent/applicant was required to pay the freight charges, including terminal charges at the booking station, as specified in Clause III of the Tripartite Agreement. However, due to the provisions of the said agreement, the entire transaction was processed, and the place of payment was shifted to Guwahati, regardless of the loading location.

4. The destination, Budge-Budge, is a Railway-owned terminal, but all the consignments were unloaded at the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter ‘BPCL’) siding known as MHBS (BGB), as there was no unloading facility for petroleum products at Budge-Budge. Consequently, the applicant filed a claim application for a refund of terminal charges collected for the destination terminal point amounting to Rs. 66,25,200/-, along with proportionate costs and interest, on the grounds that the consignment was unloaded at the private siding MHBS.

5. The appellants, namely the N.F. Railway and the Eastern Railway, strongly denied the allegations made in the Claim Application before the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (hereinafter ‘Ld. RCT’). In their written statement, the appellants contended that the Ld. RCT, Guwahati does not have the territorial jurisdiction, nor any other jurisdiction, to entertain the present claim.

6. According to the written statement filed by the appellants, under the Schedule-I, read with Rule 3 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989, provides that the Ld. RCT, Guwahati has territorial jurisdiction to entertain claims only for causes of action arising in Assam, Sikkim, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Tripura, Manipur, and Nagaland. Additionally, under Section 10 of the said Rules, the claim petition can be only filed in a jurisdiction where the freight is paid.

7. As stipulated in Clauses (iii) and (iv) on page-2 of the Tripartite Agreement dated 01.07.2010, it was agreed by all three parties that the consignor, i.e., the applicant/respondent, is required to pay the freight at the originating station. However, the parties also agreed that the payment would be made by the applicant through an ‘internet’ system to ensure that the funds could be transferred immediately to the account maintained by the railways.

8. In the instant case, the funds are transferred for the entrustment of the consignment at its originating place/station, and both the destination and originating stations fall within the State of West Bengal. Therefore, the ld. RCT does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim. However, according to Clause (xi) on page-12 of the aforementioned agreement, the ld. RCT does have jurisdiction to entertain all dispu