The Railways have the right to reweigh consignments and impose penalty charges for overloading as per Section 78 of the Railways Act 1989, with the aim of preventing accidents and covering replacement costs.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgement dated 16.09.2009 passed by the learned Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in Case No. OR-70011/2007 in favour of respondent named herein directing the appellant to refund Rs. 3,71,328/-to the respondents along with interest @ 6% per annum from 01.11.2006 till the date of payment and also cost.

2. The respondent/applicant manufactures pretressed concrete sleepers for the Indian Railways. It is the case of the respondent that with the permission of the Railway Board, 1240 MT of special cement was purchased from M/s. Ambuja Cement Eastern Ltd. This consignment was booked in 20 Wagons. The consignment was loaded from the site of dispatch, i.e. Bhatapara and the weight of the 20 wagons was 1241.00 M.T. Before reaching the destination site, i.e. Jagadishpur when the consignment was re-weighed, it was found the net weight to be 1355.40 M.T. In view of the overloading, a punitive charges amounting to Rs. 3,71,328/-was raised against the respondent.

3. The Respondent moved the Railway claim Tribunal for refund of the punitive charge under Section 16 of Railway Claim Tribunal Act 1987 which has been allowed on the basis of Annexure-5 which showed that weight of the cement was 1224.96 MT recorded by the Chief Goods Clerk, MRLB-Bhatapara under South Eastern Railways in the presence of the authorized agent of Ambuja Cement Eastern Ltd. The overloading was found en-route without notice to the applicant was wrong.

4. The appellant earlier moved this Court in W.P.(C) No. 274 /2009 challenging the order of the Railway Tribunal which was dismissed vide order dated 08.09.2010.

5. The appellant moved the Hon’ble Court in L.P.A No.493 of 2010 and their Lordships vide order dated 11.01.2011 were pleased to permit the appellant to withdraw the appeal. It was held by their Lordships that the appellant will have right to move the Appellate forum and if the appeal is filed, then question of limitation will be sympathetically considered.

6. The order has been assailed on the ground that punitive charge for the onward distance from Bhaga to Jagdishpur, was assessed on the difference between the net weight at Santhaldih weighbridge of 1355.40 and the chargeable weight of 1265.

7. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that by the order number RCT/DLI/Judl.Policy/2002-2003 dated 19.11.2007 of Railways claims Tribunal, 13/15 Moldova daily, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the concerned single member bench is restricted to Rs.2 lakhs (Rupees Two Lakhs), except in untoward and train accident cases. According to the proviso to Section 4(4) of the Railways Claims Criminal Act 1987, the single member should have referred/transferred the matter to a bench of two members that he is a division bench, when the nature of the matter so demands. Apart from the jurisdictional issue raised, it is also argued that there is provision to re-weigh and there was nothing wrong on the part of the Railway authorities to have a reweighed the consignment. During rebooking of the consignment from Bhatapara to Jagdishpur, the punitive charges were paid by respondent without any objection and without any protest. Once the excess weight had been accepted and got the same rebooked, the plea against overloading and consequent punitive charges cannot be raised. It is further argued that in LPA No. 493 of 2010, the Hon’ble court was pleased to permit the appellant to withdraw the appeal and the writ and therefore the order passed by Hon’ble. the single Judge in the writ petition does not bar the appellant from preferring the instant appeal.

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent that Hon’ble single Bench in W.P.(C) No. 274 of 2010 by the order dated 8th September 2010 had already confirmed the order of the tribunal and dismissed the writ.

9. As far as the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Tribunal is concerned, from the p