Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI AT GUWAHATI (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
ROBIN PHUKAN
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Manas Salt Iodisation Industries Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Heard Ms. Ms. U. Chakravarty, learned Special Sr. Railway Counsel for the appellants and also Ms. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act , 1987, is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.08.2015, passed in Claim Application No.OA-III-15/2009 (Old) and Claim Application No. OA-III/GHY/2009/0015 (New) by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated 06.08.2015, the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, has directed the appellants herein to pay a sum of Rs. 1,92,622/, along with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing the original application, i.e. 03.08.2009, with costs.
3. For the sake of convenience and for avoiding confusion, title of the parties, as referred to in the original Claim Application, No.OA-III- 15/2009 (Old) and Claim Application No. OA-III/GHY/2009/0015 (New) before the Railway Claims Tribunal, will be adopted herein this appeal.
4. The background facts leading to filing of the present appeal, is bri
The court emphasized strict adherence to statutory provisions and the necessity of relying on current circulars, ruling that the applicant was not entitled to the claimed freight concession.
The burden of proof lies with the claimant to substantiate claims regarding freight charges and the route taken for transportation.
The Railway Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction over claims where freight is paid, and terminal charges cannot be collected for consignments delivered to private sidings.
The burden of proof for negligence in non-delivery lies with the consignor when goods are transported at owner's risk rate.
Station to station rates cannot exceed freight for the shortest route; failure to comply with prior court orders is judicially unsustainable.
Railway claims require proper authorization and notice to appropriate authorities under applicable law; failure to adhere results in claim invalidity.
The burden of proof under Sec. 65 of the Railways Act, 1989 lies on the consignor, consignee, or endorsee to prove the number of packages stated in the Railway Receipt.
Point of Law : Tribunal came to a finding that Respondent has not proved that there was shortage at time of loading and in view of non-filing of any of documents and evidence to prove that transhipme....
The distinction between 'overcharge' and 'illegal charge' is crucial; an overcharge is excess payment due to a mistake, while an illegal charge is impermissible by law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
