THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI AT GUWAHATI (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
ROBIN PHUKAN, J
Union Of India - Appellant
Versus
M/s Manas Salt Iodisation Industries Ltd. - Respondent
MFA 27 / 2016
Decided On : 10-02-2025
(A) Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Section 23 - Appeal against judgment and order of Railway Claims Tribunal regarding freight charges - Tribunal directed appellants to pay Rs. 1,92,622/- with interest @ 6% per annum - Appellants contended overcharging of freight and terminal charges, citing various Railway Board Circulars. (Paras 2 , 4 , 10 , 15 )
(B) Legal interpretation - The court emphasized that statutory provisions must be interpreted literally, without adding or subtracting words, and that reliance on superseded circulars is erroneous. (Paras 16 , 17 )
Facts of the case:
The applicant booked a consignment of salt, but was overcharged freight based on incorrect distance and terminal charges were improperly levied. The applicant sought a refund from the Railway Claims Tribunal after a failed representation.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's decision was flawed due to reliance on an irrelevant circular and failure to consider applicable provisions, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
Issues: The main issues included the correctness of freight charges, entitlement to concessions, and the validity of terminal charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the learned Tribunal erred in its reliance on a clarification letter that had lost relevance due to supersession by a later circular, and that the applicant did not meet the conditions for a 25% concession.
Result: Appeal allowed; the Tribunal's order set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.
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 briefly stated as under:-
“The applicant as consignee had booked a consignment of 35597 bags of salt, on 09.02.2008 under Invoice No.1 to 4 and Railway Receipt No. 212000980 to 212000983 from Halvad (HVD) to Dikom (DKM), paying all the freight money at booking point vide M.R. No. 743789 dated 09.02.2008, and also took delivery of the consignment at destination point as per receipt. The respondent- Railway had collected freight on distance of 3236 km, instead of correct freight charging distance of 3181 km and the correct freight charging rate @ Rs. 1609.10 per MT.
The pleaded case of the applicant is that as per Railway Board’s Circular No. TCR/1125/94/3, dated 06.10.1994, read with N.F. Railway Circular No. C/374/RG/1/Pt. X, dated 21.11.1994 consignment should be booked by the shortest route and at the cheapest rate of freight.
Further case of the applicant is that as per Railway Board’s Concession Circular No. TCR/1078/2003/1, dated 30.04.2003 and 29.05.2006, a consignment booked over distance 3001 km are entitled to get freight concession @ Rs. 25% at the time of booking, but the respondent, at booking point, made calculation mistake for which freight was overcharged. Further case of the applicant is that HVD and DKM stations are regular goods booking and delivery Stations known as good shed and these stations are never statutorily notified by Railway as Terminal Stations. And inspite of that, the Railway had collected terminal charges despite the fact that Railway Board’s Circular No. TCR/1078/2007/06, dated 29.05.2007 and 17.07.2007 and 18.09.2007, terminal charges were not leviable on commodities packed in bag, tin, cartoon, bale or crate. The applicant then filed one representation before the respondent authority claiming refund. But the same failed to yield any result.
As the representation filed by the applicant had failed to yield any result, the applicant had approached the Railway Claims Tribunal claiming refund of the excess amount of freight as well as terminal charges.
The respondent No.1 and 2 had filed their written statement contesting the claim of the applicant. Besides challenging the identity of the applicant, they had taken a stand that the terminal charges have been collected correctly. Further it is stated that according to CCM/ Rates’ letter dated 08.04.2010, the distance ex. HVD to DKM via PNU, BKI, MGS, KIR is 3255 km, but the Railway had claimed freight for 3236 km. Another stand taken by respondent No.2 is that as per Railway Board’s Rate Circular No.47 of 2006, 25% concessional freight should not be less that the concessional freight of 3000 kms. And that the freight for 3000 km was worked out to Rs. 1234.32 after granting 20% concession. Freight for 3177 km with 25% concession comes to Rs. 1206/-
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.