Compliance with notice requirements under Section 106 of the Railways Act is mandatory for claim validity; failure to comply renders claims invalid.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. G. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. M. Sarma, the learned counsel representing the respondent.

2. This is an appeal under Section 23 of the of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the judgment and order dated 06.02.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in Claim Application No.OA-III-141/2011.

3. On 09.03.2011, the respondent filed the claim application before the Tribunal under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Act, 1987.

4. The application was filed challenging three decisions of the Railways. They are- (1) the Railways have recovered excess amount by working out the freight for covering a distance of 708 kms., which should be only 695 kms. and as per the rate prescribed, the correct chargeable rate was Rs. 507.60 paise per M.T. but the tariff was taken at a higher rate. Thus, the respondent prayed for refund of the excess tariff, (2) the Railway authority at the destination station, at the time of delivery, wrongly and illegally collected undercharges to the tune of Rs. 2,95,658/-, which the respondent claimed to be refunded and (3) at the forwarding station, the Railway administration had erroneously collected terminal charges of Rs. 1,04,960/- for the consignment booked under train load condition since as per Railway Board Circular No. TCR/1078/2007/06 dated 29.05.2007, 17.07.2007 and 18.09.2007, the terminal charges are not applicable in bagged consignment. So, the respondent is not entitled to pay terminal charges.

5. The appellant filed the written statement and claimed that since the terminal charges and overcharges were collected by the forwarding station, the present respondent has no authority to question that matter. The appellant claimed that the overcharges were rightly collected as per Section 74 of the RAILWAYS ACT since overweight was found when it was reweighed. The appellant has stated that as per Section 78 of the RAILWAYS ACT , they possessed the right to reweigh before delivery and without prior notice to the customer.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of both sides, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the requirement of notice under Section 106 of RAILWAYS ACT has been fulfilled?

2. Whether the applicant holds valid title?

3. Whether the applicants entitled to refund of excess freight, terminal charges and overcharges/punitive charges, as claimed and if entitled, to what extent?

4. Reliefs and costs.

7. At the time of hearing, none of the parties adduced oral evidence. They relied upon some documents namely- Railway Receipt, copy of payment of PUC receipt etc.

8. Finally, the Tribunal partly allowed the application of the respondent directing the appellant to refund- (1) Rs. 3,23,824/- being the excess freight collected for wrong reckoning of distance and towards overcharge collected at the destination with interest @ 6% p.a. In addition to that, the appellant was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- being the application fee and the legal practitioner’s fee. The Tribunal further directed that the appellant may recover Rs. 28,166/- from General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata.

9. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, the appellant filed the present appeal.

10. While deciding the issue, whether the requirement of notice under Section 106 of the RAILWAYS ACT was fulfilled? The Tribunal relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No(s). 21862 of 2017]. In this judgment, the Supreme Court has held that that collection of freight made on the basis of dist