Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT,(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
Union Of India Rep. By General Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon – Appellant
Versus
Hindustan Goods Carriers Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
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 t
Compliance with notice requirements under Section 106 of the Railways Act is mandatory; failure to adhere renders the claim invalid.
Compliance with statutory notice requirements under Section 106 of the Railways Act is essential for valid claims concerning compensation and overcharges.
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.
Railway claims require proper authorization and notice to appropriate authorities under applicable law; failure to adhere results in claim invalidity.
Railway authorities must provide adequate documentation to impose penal freights for overloading; absence of such evidence justifies a refund of excess charges.
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.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting claims, and failure to provide evidence results in dismissal of the appeal.
The liberal approach to condonation of delay and the interpretation of 'overcharges' under the Railways Act were central to the Court's decision.
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
