Coram: Leena Sarma, Member (Technical)

Mahtab Ahmad, Member (Judicial)

Date of Judgement: 03.10.2023

JUDGEMENT

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

2. Consignment details and claim of the applicant against each OA, are as follows:-

3. In the above two cases, applicants are the consignee of the above consignments, who took delivery of the consignment at destination station. They have served notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 upon the respondents for refund of the alleged overcharges under heads, as stated above. Their claims were either decided negatively or were not responded; consequently the claim applications before this Tribunal have been filed under Section 16 of the Railways Act, 1989.

4. Regarding punitive undercharge, the applicants have asserted that they executed the Forwarding Note in which all details regarding the said consignment were given, such as, weight, quantity, value, description, etc. and accordingly the booking railway accepted the consignment for carriage and after charging freight and other charges, Railway Receipts were issued. Loading was carried out under the supervision of the Railway staff, therefore the question of overloading does not arise. But at destination station, the railway wrongly and illegally levied and collected punitive charge from the applicants under Section 73 of the Railways Act, 1989 on allegation of overloading found on weighment enroute. Neither excess goods were delivered to the applicants, nor any indemnity bond for the same under Rule 1879(a) of the Indian Railways Commercial Manual Volume-II of 1991 was taken. Also no load adjustment or unloading was carried out in transit as per second part of Section 73 of the Railways Act, 1989. As such, the question of overloading and consequential levy and collection of punitive undercharge does not arise. It is also asserted that the subject weighment was taken enroute at Weighbridge, whose fitness on the basis of information gathered by the applicants is doubtful. Respondents have to prove that the subject weighbridge was in fit and sound condition for taking weighment enroute and its maintenance was carried out in accordance with relevant rules and regulations. No show-cause notice before imposition of the impugned punitive undercharge was given and no opportunity of hearing was also provided, which is in sheer violation of principles of natural justice. In support of the above, the applicants cited certain case