UNION OF INDIA Vs. LARSEN AND TURBO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal appellant Union of India prays for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 31.1.1997 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Claim Application No. 13/OAIII/ RCT/NGP/96 whereby the Tribunal ordered refund of excess amount charged from the applicant in the sum of Rs. 1,81,245/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim application till the date of order and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of order till realisation of amount with proportionate costs.

(2.) The Union of India has challenged the order on the ground that the Tribunal committed error of law in not taking into consideration the Rationalization Scheme in force. It is further contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in interpreting rule 125 (i) (h) of the Goods Tariff Part-I, Volume-I which is applicable in case of Rationalization Scheme.

(3.) In support of the appeal, it is contended that once the consignments are booked and charged, according to the Rationalization Scheme laid down by the Government of India, it is immaterial how the rakes were actually transported and there is no case for refund of any amount as no excess freight had been collected. It is contended that the only responsibility of the appellant is to send goods at the destination and the applicant-consignor had no right to ask how the goods are sent when at the time of booking it was a contract that goods will be booked as per rationalization scheme and the freight will be charged accordingly. According to learned counsel for the appellant, whether the freights given in rationalization scheme are correct or not, is the only question which the Tribunal had to decide and, therefore, according to learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal committed error to question as to whether the goods were sent by longer route or shorter route. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Tribunal should have observed as to whether appellant has charged the rates as per the Rationalization Scheme in force at that time and there was no question as to how the goods were sent. In substance, it is the contention of learned counsel for appellant that the Railway Administration was entitled to charge as per the Scheme although, in fact, the Railway had sent the good or transported the goods by shorter route. It is contended that in view of Section 71 of the Indian Railways Act, it is for the Central Government, if it is necessary in public interest, to direct any railway administration to carry any goods or class of goods by such route or routes and at such rates and, therefore, the claimant/consignor was bound to pay the freight as per rationalization scheme as he has agreed to pay the freight accordingly as per the forwarding note filled in by the claimant/applicant. Thus, it is contended that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction to order refund.