Coram: Leena Sarma, Member (Technical)

Mahtab Ahmad, Member (Judicial)

Review application No. Rev./GHY/0003/2024 Original Claim Application No.OAIII-12/2016 Date of filing Review Application: 18.01.2024 Date of Judgment: 14.06.2024 Union of India, though G.M, N.F Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati. .... Applicant (Original Respondent)

-Versus-

M/s Megha Technical & Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

.... Respondent (Original Applicant)

Present: Mr. P. S. Deka, Learned counsel for the applicant (Original Respondent)

None present for the respondent (Original Applicant)

Mahtab Ahmad, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

Since for Opposite Party/Applicant Sri K. P. Maheshwari, advocate who was also advocate for Original Applicant in the claim petition has put his appearance for and on behalf of the Opposite Party/Applicant in this review petition and today none is present for the Opposite Party/Applicant without any adjournment application and this review petition is based on alleged error in the judgment passed by this Tribunal in OAIII- 12/2016 (MA-43/2012) M/s Megha Technical & Engineers Pvt. Ltd vs Union of India, through G.M, N.F Railway/Eastern Railway dated 29.09.2023 alleging that the applicant was admitted for refund of Punitive Charge, even though the Tribunal has observed that all the documents relevant to the case has been produced by the applicant which is apparent on the face of record, therefore, I am of the view that only by hearing the Ld. Counsel for the Review Petitioner/ Original Respondent this review petition can be decided effectively in just and fair manner. Accordingly, we heard the Ld. Counsel for the Review Petitioner/Original Respondent Sri P.S Deka, advocate and perused the record.

2. Sri Deka, advocate the Ld. Counsel for the Review Petitioner/Respondent Railway has taken us through judgment and order available in the composite judgment and order as above in respect of case no. OAIII-12/2016 contained in Para 12 of the judgment in which at sub-Para (iv) & (v) while considering the applicant’s claim application in respect of refund of Punitive Charge of Rs. 82,541/- it was observed as under-

( iv) The only issue left is punitive charge of Rs.82,541/- against eight consignments.

Railway has submitted all the documents like ORR, Weighment Chart and the Weighbridge Verification Certificate. The fitness or verification certificate pertains from 23.09.2008 to 24.09.2009.

(v) Rs.82,541/- is to be refund to the applicant.

3. Here, notice that in sub-Para (iv) after referring the documents filed by the Review Petitioner/Respondent Railway there is not observation to the effect that the papers referred in this Para is sufficient to prove the fitness of the weighbridge as well as justification of the impugned punitive charge which could lead me to infere that the Tribunal has inadvertently and erroneously miss the further observation that the impugned punitive charge was justified and no infirmity is found in realization of it by the railway from the applicant. Without any such observation in Para (v) Rs.82541/- is to be refund to the applicant. Here also no reason contained in judgment for the same. A judgment is required a plausible reason. Since here, reason in favour of both the parties are absent therefore, it requires whole judgment to be visited to seen that on what assumption in the judgment observation in the respect of refund of impugned punitive charge Rs.82,541/- to the applicant has been made.

4. It is found that this judgment is passed not only in OAIII-12/2016 (MA-43/2012) M/s Megha Technical & Engineers Pvt. Ltd vs Union of India, though G.M, N.F Railway/Eastern Railway but along with this claim petition 15 other claim petitions have been decided by the Tribunal in many of which issue of refund of punitive charge have also been involved. When I go through the judgment in respect of other cases involving issue of refund of punitive charge I found that while allowing refund of punitive charge to the applicant in other cases the Tribunal has al