JAYPEE REWA CEMENT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the applicant before the Railway Claims Tribunal in Application No.627/1996 is directed against the order dated 5th June, 2002 passed by the learned Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal at Guwahati rejecting the application filed by the present appellant for refund of the undercharge realized from them.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of the present appeal may be noticed as under: The appellant booked 4 (four) consignments of cement vide invoice Nos.10 to 13, Railway Receipts No.408452 to 408455 dated 24th February, 1993 at SATNA for transportation to New Guwahati with the endorsement freight "to pay". On reaching of the consignments in the destination station, freight was realized and also amount of Rs.33,630/- was collected from the appellant by the Railway Administration, which according to the appellant, was realized by the Railway Administration though the said amount is not liable to be paid. According to the appellant, the said amount has been realized despite the protest made and because of the mistake committed by the Railway Administration in calculating the distance between the two stations. The appellant, therefore, filed the said application before the Tribunal for refund of the said amount. During pendency of the application, the appellant, however, has submitted the calculation sheet to the effect that they are entitled to refund of Rs.25,869/- towards the excess under charge realized by the Railway Administration from the appellant.

(3.) THE Tribunal vide order dated 5th June, 2002 has dismissed the claim application filed by the appellant / consignor by holding that in view of the provisions contained in S.74 of the aforesaid Act, the title to the property in the consignment has been transferred to the consignee after the transfer of the Railway Receipts and the delivery of the property. Hence no action, in the absence of any document to demonstrate the authorization of the consignor by the consignee to lodge the claim, the consignor cannot maintain the claim. Hence the present appeal.