Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Susmita Phukan Khaund
Union Of India Represented By The General Manager, N.E. Railway, Gorakpur UP – Appellant
Versus
Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Susmita Phukan Khaund, J.
Heard learned Special Senior Railway Counsel Ms. U. Chakraborty for the appellant and learned counsel Ms. M. Sharma for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment and order dated 26.06.2015 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in connection with Claim Application No. 0A. – III-38/2010 (Old), OA-III/GHY/2010/0025 (New).
3. The respondent booked a consignment of sugar under train load condition on 20.09.2008 under Invoice No. 23 & 24 RR 391030 and 391031 from Paliakalan to Gonda Dump. The Railway supplied 71 MG wagons for loading sugar at Paliakalan Booking Station. Out of 71 MG wagaon, 35 MG wagons arrived at Gonda Dump and the remaining 36 wagons remained stranded at Paliakalan Booking Station due to deluge caused by heavy rain. Owing to this situation, the respondent requested the Railways to allow movement of 35 MG wagaons by forming 20 BG wagons at train load under telescopic rate benefit and refund the over-charges of Rs.4,88,905/- (Rupees Four Lacs Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Five) only along with litigation costs and interest.
4. The appellant i.e.
Railway claims require proper authorization and notice to appropriate authorities under applicable law; failure to adhere results in claim invalidity.
Compliance with notice requirements under Section 106 of the Railways Act is mandatory for claim validity; failure to comply renders claims invalid.
Failure to comply with the notice requirement under Section 106 of the Railways Act renders a claim invalid, requiring strict adherence to legal procedures for claiming refunds.
Recovery of undercharged freight must occur before delivery of goods; demands made post-delivery are invalid under Railways Act, 1989.
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 Railway Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction over claims where freight is paid, and terminal charges cannot be collected for consignments delivered to private sidings.
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.
Station to station rates cannot exceed freight for the shortest route; failure to comply with prior court orders is judicially unsustainable.
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
