Coram: Leena Sarma, Member (Technical)-II Mahtab Ahmad, Member (Judicial)-II OAIII-144/2014 (Old)

OA(III)/GHY/2014/0144 (New)

Date of filing original application: 03.11.2014 Date of Judgement: 06.06.2023 M/s. Vinayak Logistic, M. G. Road, near ICICI Bank, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati-781001, Assam .... Applicant -Versus-

The Union of India represented by The General Manager, N. F. Railway, Guwahati-781011 .... Respondent no.1 The General Manager, N. E. Railway, Gorakhpur-273012 .... Respondent no.2 Present: Shri K. P. Maheshwari, Learned counsel for the applicant Shri P. S. Deka, Learned counsel for the respondents Mahtab Ahmad, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

1. This is an application filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 by the applicant M/s. Vinayak Logistic for refund of punitive charge of Rs.5,73,132/- for overloading of subject consignment.

2. Necessary facts in brief are that 07 wagons of Putty, all packed in bags of uniform and standard size, weight of which was disclosed in Forwarding Note, were booked under Invoice nos.1188, 1186, 1200, 1265, 1247, 1208 & 1222/Railway Receipt nos.212018421, 212018419, 212018417, 212018415, 212018413, 212018411 & 212018409 dated 11.07.2014 from Agra Cantonment (AGS) to New Guwahati (NGC) and accordingly Railway Receipts were prepared and freight and other charges were collected at booking station. The consignment was weighed enroute at Gorakhpur Cant Railway Weighbridge, in which overloading was found. Accordingly punitive charge was collected at destination New Guwahati (Goods). The first challenge to the impugned punitive charge is that it was levied and collected after delivery of the consignment at destination station New Guwahati (Goods), which is not permissible as per law. The second challenge is that the subject weighbridge of Gorakhpur Cant was not in order and it was not certificated and maintained according to relevant IRCM rules, especially Rule 1431 and 1435. Further, no show-cause notice was given before imposition of above punitive charge by way of penalty, which is illegal and bad in the eye of law. Accordingly, the above refund is sought for by the applicant from the respondent railways.

3. The respondent no.1 (N. F. Railway) has contested the claim application by filing written statement dated 29.06.2016, but the respondent no.2 (N. E. Railway) did not opt to contest the claim application, even after giving notice. The respondent no.1 has contested the claim application primarily on its maintainability on two grounds – firstly the competence of the applicant; and secondly on the ground of insufficiency of notice. As far as challenge to the imposition of the impugned punitive charge is concerned, the respondent contended that the impugned punitive charge was levied and collected at destination station New Guwahati (Goods) at the time of delivery and it is wrong to say that the same was levied and collected after delivery. Further, it is stated that the said weighbridge was in order at the time of weighment and it weighed the consignment correctly. Its maintenance was also carried out according to relevant rules and regulations and duly certified by the department concerned. There is no provision for giving show-cause notice before imposition of punitive charge in case of overloading. Thus, the impugned punitive charge is rightly levied and collected, in which there is no illegality. Further, it is also stated that there is no mis-calculation in freight and other charges. Accordingly dismissal of the claim application is sought for.

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

1. Whether the claim application is properly verified, signed and filed?

2. Whether legal and valid notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 has been served?

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to amount claimed?

4. Relief and cost?

5. In this case the applicant has not adduced any oral evidence, but has filed copy of notice dated 25.07.2014, Letter date