Judgment

Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J. A judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 17.09.1996 passed in M.A. No. 172 of 1993 under Section 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunals Act, 1987 awarding Rs.1,32,87,749/- towards the claim made by the respondent is under challenge in this appeal.

2. The factual matrix is that the plaintiff-respondent used to get supply of imported coal for production of steel in its plant at Rourkela through Visakhpatnam Port. The coal was to be carried from Visakhpatnam to the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), RSP change yard at Bandamunda. The shortest and cheapest route available on the railways from Visakhpatnam to Bandamunda is via Vijainagram-Titilagarh-Sambalpur-Jharsuguda-Rourkela the distance being 667 Kms. In the absence of any specific instructions of the sender, the goods are to be dispatched and charged in the shortest and cheapest route. But as per the provisions contained in Section 27-A of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, power is conferred on the Central Government directing the Railway Administration to carry any specific goods to a specific destination on a particular route known as “rationalized route”. Such power being exercised by the Central Government in General Order No. 1 of 1986 directing the South Eastern Railway Administration that imported coal from Visakhpatnam Port to Rourkela Steel Plant has to be booked and routed through the rationalized route, namely via Vijainagaram-Khurda Road-Kharagpur-Tatanagar-Chakradharpur having a total distance of 1082 Kms, the rationalized scheme having been enforced when the relevant consignments were booked from Visakhpatnam for delivery at Rourkela. In the forwarding note, though it was noted forwarding station and destination station as Visakhpatnam and Rourkela respectively, it had not been indicated the route though which goods would be delivered, though the Railways authorities issued receipts showing Visakhpatnam being the booking station, Bandamunda via Kharagpur being designation. Accordingly charges calculated and collected from the plaintiff-SAIL. The plaintiff had neither choice of route nor any opportunity to it to know the actual route of transport which was within the special knowledge of the Railway authorities. The booking and dispatch in question were during the period from 15.04.1986 to 28.11.1986 and 05.01.1987 to 28.02.1987. As per the practice prevailing in the Railways, goods have to be carried in a shortest and cheapest route unless the consignor instructs otherwise. In view of the General Order No. 1 of 1986 making it compulsory for booking the consignment through rationalized route and in view of the railway receipts, the plaintiff-SAIL did not make any grievance for payment for the travel of goods through the rationalized routes. As per the provisions contained in Rule 125(1)(h) of the Tariff Rules, the Railways is to book the consignment in the rationalized route and not in the shortest route and to carry the goods in the rationalized route. When the officers of the plaintiff came to know that charges were levied with freight on rationalized route basis instead of shortest and cheapest route, they objected to the same and stated that when the goods were to be dispatched through the shortest and cheapest route, there was no justification for carrying the same otherwise and saddle if with freight for rationalized route. Therefore, the very foundation of the Central Government General Order No.1 of 1986 was absolutely misconceived. Finding no other way out, the plaintiff-SAIL filed Money Suit No.115 of 1989 before the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Rourkela seeking a decree for Rs.1,32,87,749/- with pendente lite and future interest thereon at the rate prevailing in the Nationalized Bank. When the matter was sub judice before the Subordinate Judge, Rourkela, due to establishment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, the aforesaid Money Suit was transferred to the said Tribunal, which was registered as