GUWAHATI, India, June 6 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on May 6:
1. Heard Mr. D. Rathi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. U. Chakraborty, learned standing counsel for Respondent Railways.
2. The claimant as appellant has preferred this appeal u/s 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench dated 20.03.2013 in Claim Application No.243/2005.
3. The case of the appellant/claimant is that the appellant is a firm under the name & style M/s Unique Coal Traders, having its permanent office at Ram Kumar Plaza Market, Chatribari, Guwahati, Assam and is engaged in the business of coal. The appellant approached the learned Tribunal as an applicant for refund of Rs.50,494/- on account of shortage of goods. The claim of the applicant in the learned Tribunal was that the respondent had charged freight for 2466.1 MT of coal instead of 2404.4 MT of coal in a transaction of Train Load Consignment from Jogighopa to Sealdah under Invoice No.28 to 54 vide Railway Receipt No.743687 to 743713 dated 16.03.2003.
4. The goods entrusted to the Railways for transportation at the time of booking were 2404.4 MT of coal but the respondent had realized punitive charges for overloading at the booking station itself without giving a hearing opportunity to the appellant. In addition to that, the appellant was also not allowed or asked to adjust the excess goods if any at the booking station itself in accordance with Section 73 of the Railways Act, 1989 and Rule 3 of the Railways (Punitive Charges for Overloading of Wagon) Rules 2007. Such an action of the respondent was in violation of the said rules and law and against the principles of natural justice.
5. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal has failed to make a note of the claim of the appellant that the respondent has wrongly charged the freight for 2466.1 MT of coal instead of 2404.4 MT of coal in a transaction of Train Load Consignment. The consignment was weighed and at the booking station itself, the appellant was forced to pay the punitive charge which was not at all warranted in the present circumstance as a hearing opportunity was not allowed to the appellant. Such an act of the respondent is in violation of the principles of natural justice and also is in violation of the law as laid down by this Court in W.A No.333/2010 [Megha Technical and Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others.]
6. Further submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal has failed to observe that the appellant ought to have been given a chance to adjust the overload goods if any in terms of Section 73 of the Railways Act, 1989 and Rule 3 of Railways (Punitive Charges For Overloading of Wagon) Rules 2007. As such, the impugned judgment and order dated 20.03.2013 is liable to be set aside.
In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the following case laws -
a) (2023) SCC Online SC 1140 ( Union Territory of Ladakh and others Vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and another)
b) MFA 31/2012 (Union of India Vs. M/s Fuel Sources India Pvt. Ltd.)
c) MFA 32/2013 (Union of India Vs. M/s Unique Coal Traders).
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=T2Oj5Y97nX2tmju2FyqIU5nuMP7zmyFQ8VVfcJYhY3ggSrGw3F5d4u22d4ipZlQb&caseno=MFA/110/2013&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010193062013&state_code=6&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
