Mr. Alok Upasani, Member (Judicial)-I Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, Member (Technical)-I Date of Judgement: 22.05.2023

Sl. No.	O.A. No.	Name of Applicant	Name of Respondent (Union of India represented by)
1	III-197/2013 [OA(III)/GHY/2013/0242]	M/s. TOPCEM India, Mega Plaza, 4th Floor, Christian Basti, G. S. Road, Guwahati-781005, Assam	GM, N. F. Railway & GM, E. Railway
2	III-205/2013 [OA(III)/GHY/2013/0250]	M/s. TOPCEM India, Mega Plaza, 4th Floor, Christian Basti, G. S. Road, Guwahati-781005, Assam	GM, N. F. Railway & GM, E. Railway
3	III-207/2013 [OA(III)/GHY/2013/0252]	M/s. TOPCEM India, Mega Plaza, 4th Floor, Christian Basti, G. S. Road, Guwahati-781005, Assam	GM, N. F. Railway & GM, E. Railway

Present: Shri K. P. Maheshwari, Learned counsel for the applicants Shri A. K. Sarma, Learned counsel for the respondent Member (Technical), Tanveer Ahmed COMMON JUDGEMENT

1. Since in all these three claim applications, more or less similar issues are involved, therefore these applications were heard together and are being decided by common judgement.

2. Details of Invoice no., railway receipt no., date of booking, consignment booked and claim of the applicant against each OA, are as follows:-

O.A. No.	Invoice no./RR no., date of booking & consignment	Claim for refund of overcharges on account of
III-197/2013 [OA(III)/GHY/2013/0242]	05/212000758 dated 07.06.2012 ex. Siuri to Changsari, 58000 bags of Dry Fly Ash in trainload.	(a) Terminal Charges; (b) use of wrong calculation method; and (c) Punitive Undercharge at destination station.
III-205/2013 [OA(III)/GHY/2013/0250]	08/212000904 dated 18.11.2012 ex. Siuri to Changsari, 57500 bags of Dry Fly Ash in trainload.	(a) Terminal Charges; (b) use of wrong calculation method; and (c) Punitive Undercharge at destination station.
III-207/2013 [OA(III)/GHY/2013/0252]	14/212000955 dated 25.01.2013 ex. Siuri to Changsari, 58000 bags of Dry Fly Ash in trainload.	(a) Terminal Charges; (b) use of wrong calculation method; and (c) Punitive Undercharge at destination station.

3. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether statutory legal notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 has been served?

2. Whether the applicant holds legal title?

3. Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation as claimed in the claim application and to what extent?

4. Relief and costs?

4. We perused the record thoroughly and heard argument of respective counsels. The issue-wise findings are as follows:-

ISSUE NOS.1 & 2:

(These two issues are taken up together for discussion and decision for the sake of convenience)

5. As per copy of Railway Receipts, the applicants herein are the consignee. It is seen that in all these cases, the notice under Section 106 has either been signed by the authorized representative of the consignee or his legal representative; and that the notice has been served to the respondents within time. Perusal of the case records also shows that all these claim applications have been duly verified, signed and filed by the authorized representative of the consignee, for and on behalf of the consignee.

6. These OAs are filed by the consignee and if these OAs are decreed in favour of the consignee, the benefit of the orders will go not to the individual who has verified the application, but only to the consignee so named. Further, the amount awarded shall be credited only to the consignee’s bank account through electronic transfer through RTGS or NEFT and to that extent, no one individual can siphon the amount.

7. Considering all the facts stated above, it is held that statutory legal notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 was served within time to the respondents; and that the applicants hold legal title. Accordingly Issue nos.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the applicants. ISSUE NO.3:

8. The applicants have claimed for refund of overcharges on account of some of the following:-

(i) Termina

Click Here to Read the rest of this document