Honble SINGH, J.–These two appeals by special leave have been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court in MA (F). No. 180 of 1996 dated May 19, 2000 and the order passed in Review Petition No. 85 of 2000 dated July 28, 2000. The High Court by its judgment and order impugned dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench dated August 30, 1996 in Application No.915 of 1993. The review petition preferred against the judgment and order of the High Court was also rejected by order dated July 28, 2000.

(2). The factual background in which the dispute arose is as follows:- Two consignments of iodised salt were booked in favour of the appellant. The first consignment consisted of 767 bags and the second 744 bags. These consignments were not delivered. The appellant, therefore, lodged two claims dated April 26, 1991 claiming the value of the said goods, namely Rs.53,264/- and Rs.51,686/- in respect of the two consignments. By letters dated April 7, 1993 (despatched in August, 1993) the Railways admitted the claims only to an extent of Rs.9,111/- and Rs.9,032/- and enclosed two cheques in favour of the appellant for the sum of Rs.9,111/- and Rs.9,032/-in respect of the two claims. Both the cheques were dated July 27, 1993. The letters contained the following condition:-

"In case the above offer is not acceptable to you, the Cheque should be returned forthwith to this office: failing which it will be deemed that you have accepted the offer in full and final satisfaction of your claim.

The retention of this cheque and/or encashment thereof will automatically amount to acceptance in full and final satisfaction of your above claim without reason and you will be estopped from claiming any further relief on the subject".

(3). On receipt of two letters along with the two cheques, the appellant wrote to the Railways two identical letters of August 20, 1993 stating that the claims were placed under, PROTEST and could not be accepted, and that the balance amount should be remitted within 15 days. We extract below one of the letters dated August 20, 1993:

"We regret to inform you that our above noted claim has been settled for Rs. 9111/- instead of Rs.53284/- the claimed amount. The same is therefore placed under : PROTEST: and cannot be accepted. Please therefore remit the balance amount to us within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this letter, failing which, we shall be compelled to lodge a Civil suit against the Rly for recovery of the balance amount. Please treat this as most urgent".

(4). It is not in dispute that the cheques were encashed, though the exact date of encashment is not apparent from the record. It is also not disputed that the balance amount claimed by the appellant was not paid by the Railways. In these circumstances the appellant filed a claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench for Rs.21,151/- and Rs.20,258/- (after adjusting the freight payable namely Rs.23,022/- and Rs.22,396/-) in all Rs.41,409/- as balance compensation in regard to the two invoices.

(5). Before the Railway Claims Tribunal the Railways pleaded full and final settlement since the cheques were riot returned and were in fact encashed. The Tribunal took the view that there was no scope for the applicant to treat the amount as part payment by making a protest and if the applicant found the amount to be insufficient he should have returned the cheques because the offer made by the Railways was in very clear terms, namely that the amount could be accepted only in full and final satisfaction of the claim or else the cheques had to be returned. In this view of the matter the claim application was dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal.

(6). The appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court which came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of the High Court who referred the matter for consideration by a Divisio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document