UNION OF INDIA Vs. HARINAGAR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent in MFA no. 54/2007 filed an application being application No. 88/20004 against the Railway administration for refund of freight over charge amounting to Rs. 3,54,236/- with interest contending that the goods booked vide different railway receipts were not delivered in the destination station but was delivered at a station much before the destination station though they collected the freight up to the destination station as well as the demurrage charged. The respondents in MFA No. 89/2007 approached the learned tribunal in Application No. 149/2005 claiming compensation for short delivery of the consignment at the destination station as well as challenging the penalty imposed for the excess weight detected in enroute weighment. In both the cases the railway contested the claim. In the reply filed in Application no. 88/04, it has been contended by the railway that as the goods reached the destination station JTTN before effecting the interception/diversion order, such interception order stands automatically cancelled in terms of the Indian Railway Commercial manual and thereafter, the goods were arranged to be delivered at DMV (diversion station) at the request of the applicant who undertook to pay all necessary charges/railway dues and therefore, the applicant is liable to pay the freight as well as demurrage charges. In Application No. 149/2005, the railway Administration in the objection apart from other grounds have taken the stand that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain any dispute relating to the imposition of penal charges for excess weight detected.

(2.) THE learned Tribunal on the basis of the materials available on record vide orders dated 5-9-2006 and 7-12-2006 directed the Railway Administration to pay a sum of rs. 1,78,200/- and Rs. 5,20,800/- with interest and cost in respect of Application Nos. 88/2004 and 149/2005, respectively. In application No. 149/05, the learned tribunal has also condoned the penal charges imposed by the Railway Administration. The railway Administration thereafter, filed review petitions, which were registered a review Petition Nos. 19/2006 and 2/2007, respectively, seeking review of the aforesaid judgments and orders passed by the learned tribunal, which were, however, dismissed vide orders dated 11-4-2007 and 7-3-2007. The Railway Administration in the present appeals has challenged both the original judgments and orders as well as the orders passed in the review petition rejecting the same.

(3.) I have heard Mr. S. Sarma and Mr. U. K. Nair, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. A. K. Saraf, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.