JUDGEMENT

1. Since both the above cases involve more or less common facts and law, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgement.

2. In OAIII-230/2013 [OA(III)/GHY/2013/0275], the applicant’s claim is for refund of alleged overcharge of total Rs.2,60,821/- i.e., Rs.2,52,248/- as terminal charge/calculation mistake and Rs.8,573/- as punitive charge for alleged overloading with interest. In this case, a consignment of 2667 MT of Dry Fly Ash, packed in 76000 bags was booked in trainload under Invoice no.76/Railway Receipt no.212000986 dated

26.02.2013 ex. Siuri to Digaru .

While in OAIII-143/2014 [OA(III)/GHY/2014/0143], the applicant’s claim is for refund of punitive charge of Rs.1,24,826/- for alleged overloading with interest. In this case, a consignment of 1240 packets of China Clay was booked under Invoice nos.1199 & 1203/Railway Receipt nos.212018405 & 212018406 dated 11.07.2014 ex. AGS to NGC.

3. Applicants’ case: 3.1 Terminal Charge:

3.1.1 In OAIII-230/2013 [OA(III)/GHY/2013/0275], the applicant’s claim for refund of terminal charges is primarily based on the assertion that both the originating station Siuri (Goods) and the destination station Digaru (Goo