IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof lies with the claimant to substantiate claims regarding freight charges and the route taken for transportation.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN , J.

Heard Ms. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and also Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents.

2. This appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the common judgment and order dated 21.07.2023, passed in Original Application No.OAIII-148/2013 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated 21.07.2023, the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, has repudiated the claim of the appellant to direct the respondents to return a sum of Rs.8,34,363/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of payment of overcharges and also other cost.

3. The background facts leading to filing of the present appeal, is briefly stated as under:-

“The present appellant, being the consignee, had booked a consignment of 49892 packets of sugar, comprising of 50 Kg each, was booked by the consignee and loaded the same in railway wagons from regular goods shed GULBARGA/Goods for destination New Guwahati goods shed paying all consideration amount as well as railway freight charges. The respondent authorities collected the freight on the distance of 3148 Km @Rs.1,807/- per ton. However, the shortest route and the actual route which has been taken by the railway to deliver the consignment was from WADI-BPQ-JSG- ASN-MLDT respectively, which is around 2618 Km and despite the chargeable shortest distance from Gulbarga to New Guwahati, the rate was charged @Rs.1,807/- per ton for a distance of 3148 Km instead of the rate @Rs.1,604.60 per ton plus other charges for a shortest distance from Gulbarga to New Guwahati i.e. 2618 Km and the respondent authorities erroneously charged @Rs.1,807/- per ton as freight for a distance of 3148 Km and it has also collected terminal charges amounting to Rs.2,48,484/- in contravention of the Circular No.2007/PL/25/1, dated 05.06.2007 and No.TCR/1078/ 2007/06, dated 29.05.2007, 17.07.2007 and 18.09.2007 and the said circulars expressly provides that terminal charges are not at all applicable in bagged consignments. The appellant then sent a notice through its counsel dated 15.12.2011, followed by another notice dated 23.01.2012, under Section 106 of the Railway Act, 1989 to the Chief Commercial Manager (Refund Goods), Central Railway, Mumbai, for the purpose of addressing the grievance, as the same relates to refund of freight and other charges. But the said claim was repudiated vide letter dated 13.02.2012 on the ground that lack of power of attorney to support the claim notice under Section 106 and also the claim notice served by the appellant’s counsel was neither consignee nor consignor.

Then, being aggrieved the appellant approached the Railway Claims Tribunal for refund of Rs.8,34,363/-, being the freight overcharge, but the same was repudiated vide impugned judgment and order dated 21.07.2023 by the Railway Claims Tribunal.”

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, dated 21.07.2023, of the Railway Claims Tribunal the appellant approached this Court by filing the present appeal on the ground that the impugned judgment and order is contrary to law and Railway Board’s Notifications is unreasonable and the same was passed without consideration of the Notification of the Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, dated 01.04.2011, bearing Notification No.2011/TT-III/27/1 and without interpreting the circular passed by the Ministry of Railways, New Delhi, dated 27.02.1987, bearing No.TCR/1125/86 and in contravention of a decision of this Court in Kalpataru Agro Forest Enterprise v. Union of India reported in MANU/GH/0409/2012 and also the decision of Jharkhand High Court in Union of India v. Steel Authority of India in MA No.112/2017 and that the impugned judgment and order dated 21.07.2023, is highly arbitrary and capricious and improper and