The contract of carriage arises only upon acceptance and issuance of the railway receipt, and applicable rates are determined based on the conditions at the time of booking, not registration.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

Heard Ms. M. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. K. Phukan, learned CGC appearing for the respondents Union of India.

2] This appeal is presented under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against the judgment & order dated 12.04.2023 passed in Original Application No. OAIII-25/2016 (Old) by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”), whereby the claim filed by the appellant/consignor seeking refund of additional freight was rejected.

3] The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/consignor booked 42 BCN wagons for transporting a consignment of iodized salt intended to be transported via railway under the 'train load (class 100)' [hereinafter referred to as the 'train load') scheme by registering under the classification of two-point destination terminals rake, i.e., 21 BCN wagons to Harmoti and 21 BCN wagons to Dekargaon from Chirai (hereinafter referred to as the subject consignment). Accordingly, the appellant/consignor paid all freight money of Rs. 55,08,341/- at the time of booking at Chirai railway station vide Money Receipt No. 542024 dated 30.09.2015. It is the specific case of the appellant/consignor that on the next date, i.e., on 01.10.2015, the railway authorities at the booking point collected additional freight to the tune of Rs. 27,54,222/- vide Money Receipt No. 542025, treating the booking of the appellant/consignor under the 'wagon load (class 150)' (hereinafter referred to as the 'wagon load') condition despite the fact that the consignment was booked under the 'train load' condition. Aggrieved by such additional freight being levied from the appellant/consignor, the appellant/consignor on 10.08.2016 filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for a refund of the additional freight collected by the railway authorities to the tune of Rs. 27,54,222/-. Upon receipt of a written statement from the railway authorities on 13.04.2021, the Tribunal framed the following issues: -

“1. Whether statutory legal notice under Section 106 of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989 has been duly served?

2. Whether the applicant holds legal title?

3. Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation as claimed in the claim application and to what extent?

4. Reliefs and costs?”

4] Thereafter, upon hearing the parties, the Tribunal, by judgment dated 12.04.2023, was pleased to hold the first two issues as regards the legality of the statutory legal notice under Section 106 of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989, (hereinafter referred to as the “1989 Act”), and the legal title of the appellant in favour of the appellant/consignor. However, as regards the other issue of whether the appellant/consignor is entitled to compensation as claimed in the claim petition, the Tribunal held the same against the appellant/consignor by holding that there is no merit as regards the contention of the appellant/consignor in seeking a refund on the additional freight and the respondent authorities cannot be faulted for their action for levying additional freight. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the appellant/consignor is not entitled to any refund/compensation as prayed for. Situated thus, the present appeal has been preferred.

5] Ms. M. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence and erred in rejecting the claim despite the proof of the fact that the indent for dispatching the subject consignment through BCN wagons was placed on 25.08.2015, and upon such indent being placed, the railway authorities calculated the rate under the 'train load' rate, which is evident from the forwarding notes and money receipt exhibited before the Tribunal. She further submits that admittedly the circular applicable as on 25.08.2015 is that of 05.06.2015, under which the 'train load' rate is leviable for BCN wagons. She further submits that the subsequent corrigendum dated 18.09.2015, whi