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

JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Rathi, 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 29.11.2023 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in O.A. No.III/96/2015.

3. On 03.11.2014, 23.11.2014 and 23.12.2014, consignment of mixed goods were booked under the PW Bill No.460987, 492356 and 492363 from Vapi to NGC. The Railways demanded Rs. 1,83,597/- vide Railway Letter dated 17.12.2014 on an allegation of overloading and the applicant paid the said amount vide MR Nos.566219, 566343 to 566345. The respondent claimed refund of the said amount.

4. The Tribunal allowed the application and directed the appellant to refund the amount of Rs. 1,83,597/- to the respondent.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

6. At this stage, a brief visit to Section 106 of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989 would be fruitful. The same is quoted as under:

“106. Notice of claim for compensation and refund of overcharge.—(1) A person shall not be entitled to claim compensation against a railway administration for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of goods carried by railway, unless a notice thereof is served by him or on his behalf,— (a) to the railway administration to which the goods are entrusted for carriage; or (b) to the railway administration on whose railway the destination station lies, or the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration occurs, within a period of six months from the date of entrustment of the goods. (2) Any information demanded or enquiry made in writing from, or any complaint made in writing to, any of the railway administrations mentioned in sub-section (1) by or on behalf of the person within the said period of six months regarding the non-delivery or delayed delivery of the goods with particulars sufficient to identify the goods shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to be a notice of claim for compensation. (3) A person shall not be entitled to a refund of an overcharge in respect of goods carried by railway unless a notice therefor has been served by him or on his behalf to the railway administration to which the overcharge has been paid within six months from the date of such payment or the date of delivery of such goods at the destination station, whichever is later.”

7. On the face of the record, the original application filed by the respondent is bad for non- compliance of the provisions of Section 106 of the Act of 1989. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is bad in law and is set aside.

8. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

Send back the trial court record.