Railway claims require proper authorization and notice to appropriate authorities under applicable law; failure to adhere results in claim invalidity.

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. the Railway authorities refuted the claim of the respondent on the ground that 36 wagons which were stranded at Paliakalan could not be moved owing to the heavy rainfall and the destruction caused on the Railway Track and this fact was admitted by the respondent also. The Railways further opined that if the consignment consists of less than 38 BCN wagons, the same would be calculated as wagon load rate and under such circumstances, the respondent cannot claim the benefit of train load class rate and telescopic benefit. The Railways contended that they are protected under Section 93 (a) and (1) of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989 (the Act of 1989 for short).

5. The order is impugned on the ground that the learned Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the RCT for short) misconstrued and misinterpreted the law relating to documents and evidence as well as the provision of Section 106(3) read with Section 192 and 108 of the Act of 1989 and Rule 7(3) of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 (the Rules for short) as well as the provisions of Clause 3(a), 4(i) & 4(vii) of N.E. Railway’s Rates Circular No. 43 of 2008 (Circular 43 for short) and thereby committed manifest error.

6. The claim application was filed by Mr. Puroshattam Runthala as the constituent attorney of M/S Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. by filing an affidavit dated 06.03.2014 which was brought on record by the Railways before the RCT.

7. Rule 7(3) of the Rules says that “in case a claim application is filed by an agent, it shall be accompanied by a document authorizing him to act as such. It is averred that the attorney failed to bring on record any such authorization to establish his authority and as such, the claim preferred by the said authority for M/S Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. cannot be termed as claim from the side of the applicant and was thus not maintainable.

8. It is submitted that the notice under Section 106 (3) of the Act of 1989 is to be served upon the Railway Administration to be eligible for claim for refund of freight over chage, if any. Here, the Railway Administration as per Section 2 (32) of the Act of 1989 is the General Manager, N.E. Railway, but the respondent failed to show any notice served upon the General Manager and the applicant is not entitled to any refund of freight overcharges in violation of Section 106 (3) read with Section 192 of the Act of 1989.

9. It is contended that the RCT has erred in law as well as in facts as the Tr