JUDGMENT AND ORDER

[1] Heard Mr. G. Goswami, the learned Standing Counsel, N.F. Railways, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Divyansh Rathi, the learned counsel for the respondents.

[2] This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been filed against the common Judgment and Order dated 24.11.2016 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in Original Application No. 479/2007, whereby the Railway Claims Tribunal has directed the present appellant to refund the under charges and demurrage charges imposed on the respondent No. 1 by the appellant, along with an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the original application till the date of realization.

[3] The facts relevant for consideration of this appeal, in brief, are that the respondent No. 1 had booked a consignment from Tilda(TLD) to the destination i.e., New Guwahati (NGC). The consignment booked by the respondent No. 1 said to contain 3,760 quintals of rice. The said consignment was booked @ Rs.109.46 per quintal.

[4] It is also stated that the distance between the originating station i.e. Tilda(TLD) to the destination i.e. New Guwahati(NGC) is 1570 kms and the freight calculated on the aforesaid consignment was to the tune of Rs.4,11,570/-. However, the present appellant owing to excess weight of the aforesaid consignment imposed the penal undercharges to the tune of Rs. 31,733 as well as demurrage charges at the destination station to the tune of Rs.20,475/- and thereby, the respondent No. 1 was made to pay an excess charge of Rs.57,962/-.

[5] The present respondent filed an original application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench claiming refund of the excess freight charges paid by him. The said original application was registered as Original Application No. 479/2007. The said original application was taken up by the Railway Claims Tribunal, along with 45 other original applications where similar questions of law was involved. Ultimately, by the impugned judgment dated 24.11.2016, the Railway Claims Tribunal directed the present appellants to refund the excess charges imposed on the respondent No. 1, along with the simple interest @ 9% per annum.

[6] Mr. G. Goswami, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent authority had lawfully imposed the punitive charges for overloading the wagon by the respondent No. 1. He submits that though, a full bench of this Court in the case of the "Megha Technical & Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. The Union of India & Ors.", W.A. No. 333/2010 had held that under Section 73 of the Railways Act, 1989, punitive charges cannot be imposed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the person on whom the charges were sought to be imposed, however, recently the Apex Court in the Judgment of "Union of India Vs. Megha Technical & Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd." (SLP (c) No. 8024/2018) has set aside the aforesaid judgment of the full bench of this court and has held that when excess weightage has been detected at the time of offloading, it would be practically difficult for the railways to issue a show-cause notice to consignor or the consignee and to hold a mini trial to determine the question of excess weight and levy of compensatory charges. He, therefore, submits that the railways were well within their right to impose the punitive charge for overloading of the wagons by the respondent No. 1.

[7] He submits that the impugned judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal is also bad in as much as it failed to take into consideration that burden of proving that the weight declared by the consignor, at the time of issuance of railway receipt to him is the correct weight of the consignment and that no penal freight should be imposed, is on the applicant, who moves the original application before the Railway Claims Tribunal in view of the provisions of Section 110 of the Railways Act, 1989. He submits that the Railway Clai