KALPATARU AGROFOREST ENTERPRISES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order dated 27-10-98, passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bench Bhopal, in Review Case No. 18/98, whereby the review application filed by the appellant against the order dated 10-12-97 was rejected.

(2.) THIS appeal involves common question of facts and law with connected Misc. Appeal Nos. 161/99, 163/99, 164/99, 166/99 and 167/99 between the same parties. For this reason the disposal of this appeal on merits shall govern the disposal of those appeals and it would be unnecessary to write a separate detailed order in each case.

(3.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal may be shortly stated. The appellant filed a claim case before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, registered as O. A. No. 391 of 1995 for refund of Rs. 55,450/ -. The appellant claimed that the South Eastern Railway and the North Eastern Frontier Railway represented by the Union of India were not entitled to charge in excess the aforesaid amount by way of freight because the goods loaded by the appellant were carried by shorter route for which the freight charge would be less by aforesaid amount. It is alleged in Original Application No. 391 of 1995 that the appellant was the consignor of the goods which were booked in four consignments from BONGAIGON to AMLAI. Accordingly, four Railway Receipts were obtained by the appellant mentioning the appellant as the consignor of the goods and the consignee was the Orient Paper Mills, Amlai. It may be stated here at the out set that the four Railway Receipts issued by North East Frontier Railway at the starting station showed that consignee was required to pay the amount of freight chargeable for carrying the goods at the time of delivery of goods. This was indicated in the Railway Receipts by the use of the words "to pay". This aspect of the matter was not in dispute before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal (henceforth 'the Tribunal') and this Court too. The foundation for the claim of the appellant for the refund of Rs. 55,450/- was that the freight was charged in excess because it was represented to the appellant that goods shall be carried by a longer route called "rationalized Route" on account of the paucity of the line capacity of the Railways during the rush season. According to the appellant the Rationalised Route was via Malda/dankuni etc. , for short, recognized as "mldt/dake". It was 1769 Kilometers as compared to another shorter route via Andal-Anara-Chakradharpur, having a distance of 1530 Kilometers from the booking station. It was urged by the appellant that under the Rationalised Scheme prevalent at that time it was necessary for the Railways, for operational reasons, to carry the goods by a longer route. Therefore, at the booking station the charge for 1769 Kilometers was made but there was no operational constraint at the time of actual movement of goods. Therefore, the goods were, in fact, carried by a shorter route via Andal-Anara-Chakradharpur and the distance covered by Railway Wagons carrying the goods was only 1530 Kilometers. The appellant, therefore, claimed refund of the excess of freight charged by the respondent which came to Rs. 55,450/filing Case No. O. A. 391 of 1995, against the respondent.