The right to request weighment under Section 79 of the Railways Act is not absolute; it is subject to operational feasibility, thus validating punitive charges for excess weight identified by railway measurements.

Headnote:(A) Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 79, 83 - Claim for punitive charges based on weighment of consignment - Tribunal's decision set aside due to incorrect interpretation of statutory provisions. The demand for re-weighment is not an absolute right and is subject to feasibility. (Paras 12, 24, 29, 41)

(B) Appeal - Review of Tribunal's findings - Principles of Natural Justice - Tribunal's error in not accepting the statutory rights of the railway authority in conducting weighment. (Paras 44, 50)

Facts of the case:
The appeal is by Union of India against a Tribunal's decision that claimed punitive charges for an excess weight of maize transported by the first respondent, who sought re-weighment after conflicts arose regarding the accuracy of measurements conducted by the Railways.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the first respondent did not have an absolute right to re-weigh the goods and upheld the initial punitive charges based on the electronic in-motion weighbridge measurements, calling the Tribunal's ruling erroneous.

Issues: The main issues were the validity of punitive charges for excess weighment, whether the first respondent could assert rights to an independent re-weighment, and the responsibilities of the railway authorities under applicable laws.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that while a request for weighment can be made by the consignee, it is not an absolute entitlement; the railway authorities maintain discretion according to operational feasibility.

Result: Appeal allowed; the Tribunal’s order is set aside.

Table of Content
1. background of the case and initial claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. details of the consignment and issues with weighment. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. legal basis for weighing and penalties established. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. justification of punitive charges based on weighment. (Para 11 , 12)
5. arguments regarding the handling and responsibility of the consignment. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
6. issues framed by the tribunal. (Para 19 , 20)
7. court's reasoning on weight reexamination requests. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
8. discussion on the feasibility of weighment requests. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
9. court's affirmation of the weighment conducted. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
10. reinforcement of the duties of railway authorities. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
11. assessment of a request for reweighment. (Para 34 , 35 , 36)
12. binding nature of weighment results. (Para 37 , 38 , 39)
13. discussion on the validity of the second respondent's weighment. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
14. tribunal findings and legal principles. (Para 44 , 45 , 46)
15. clarification on excess weighment claims. (Para 47 , 48)
16. final decision on the punitive charges. (Para 49 , 50)
17. court's final conclusion and orders. (Para 51 , 52)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on hand is preferred against the judgment dated 14.03.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench in OA(III) / 1/2018.

2. The appeal is fled by the Union of India owning Southern Railway represented by its General Manager.

3. The facts in nutshell as narrated by the appellants are that the 1st respondent / M/s.Mysore Mercantile Co., Ltd., has filed a Claim Petition under S.36(b) and (c) before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai, numbered as Complaint No.1/2015, with a prayer to declare that the order passed by the 2nd appellant / Chief Goods Supervisor in proceedings No.KOKG / ICTD / Punitive charges / 01/15 dated 13.01.2015 claiming punitive charges of Rs.22,35,310/- relating to the consignment of Maize booked under Invoice No.2, RR No.212000009 dated 11.01.2015 for transportation from Shimoga Town to Inland Container Depot at Chennai Tondairpet is unreasonable and further, sought for a direction, seeking refund of a sum of Rs.11,17,655/- being the 50% of the alleged punitive charges and revoke the Bank Guarantee famished by the Complainant / 1st respondent for Rs.11,17,655/- being the balance of the 50% of the alleged punitive charges, which amounts were paid subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition as per order dated 30.01.2015 passed in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 in W.P.No.2008/2015.

4. The Tribunal allowed the Claim Petition.

5. The 1st respondent in his complaint, has contended that 39,638 bags of maize purporting to weigh 60 kgs per bag was transported from Shimoga Town to Inland Container Depot at Tondiarpet, Chennai. The total weight as declared by the 1st respondent was 2484 MT loaded in 41 wagons. At the destination station at Tondairpet Inland Container, when the goods arrived, the 2nd appellant has done the re - weighment in transit at Tiruvalangadu Electronic In - motion Weigh Bridge and at that point of time, it was detected that there was an excess in weighment to the tune of 316.50 MT on 13.01.2015. Therefore, the 2nd appellant had levied a penalty of Rs.22,35,310/- for the excess load loaded by the 1st respondent. The calculations of excess weight per wagon had been worked out and the same was accompanied with the notice sent to the 1st respondent.

6. The 1st respondent had sought for permission to unload the wagons to avoid demurrage and also sought for re - weighment. The said request of the 1st respondent was forwarded to the Divisional Commercial Manager and the official by way of written reply categorically replied that as per the prevailing rules and norms, no re - weighment is allowed in terms of the goods transported. Aggrieved by the said decision, the 1st respondent had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.2008 of 2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and an interim

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 79869

MADRAS HIGH COURTS. M. Subramaniam, J.Union of India owning Southern Railway represented by its General Manager – AppellantVersusM/s.Mysore Mercantile Co., Ltd. – RespondentCivil Miscellaneous Appeal | OA(III) / 1/2018

The right to request weighment under Section 79 of the Railways Act is not absolute; it is subject to operational feasibility, thus validating punitive charges for excess weight identified by railway measurements.

MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. M. Subramaniam, J.
Union of India owning Southern Railway represented by its General Manager – Appellant
Versus
M/s.Mysore Mercantile Co., Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal | OA(III) / 1/2018