Union Of India Thr. G.M vs Food Corpn. Of India Thr. Dist. ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 376 Bom

                                          1
                                                              fa328.04.61.06.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                
                 NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                        
                        First Appeal No.328 of 2004
                                 Along with
                         First Appeal No.61 of 2006




                                                       
                        First Appeal No.328 of 2004

      Union of India,
      through General Manager,
      Central Railway,




                                             
      Mumbai, CST.                                        ... Appellant

           Versus
                             
      Food Corporation of India,
                            
      through District Manager,
      Ajni, Nagpur.                                       ... Respondent
      

      Shri Nitin Lambat, Advocate for Appellant.
      Shri S.R. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent.
   



                                   First Appeal No.61 of 2006





      Union of India,
      through General Manager,
      Central Railway,
      Mumbai, CST.                                        ... Appellant





           Versus

      Food Corporation of India,
      through District Manager,
      Ajni, Nagpur.                                       ... Respondent




    ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2016                        ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:04:23 :::
                                        2
                                                                fa328.04.61.06.odt




                                                                                  
      Shri Nitin Lambat, Advocate for Appellant.
      Shri C.S. Samudra, Advocate for Respondent.




                                                          
                    Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.

th Dated : 7 March, 2016

Oral Judgment :

1. In Claim Petition No.06/OA-III/RCT/NGP/99 filed

under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the

Railway Claims Tribunal, Bench at Nagpur, has directed the

railway authorities to pay the amount of Rs.37,107/- towards

refund of excess amount of freight paid, along with interest at

the rate of 6% per annum from 6-5-1999 till the final payment is

made. In Claim Petition No.07/OA-III/RCT/NGP/99, the

Tribunal has directed the refund of amount of Rs.29,287/- paid

in excess towards freight, along with interest at the rate of 6%

per annum with effect from 12-5-1999 till its payment. This

common judgment delivered on 31-7-2002 is the subject-matter

of challenge in both these appeals preferred by the Union of

India, through its General Manager, Central Railway.

fa328.04.61.06.odt

2. The respondent-Food Corporation of India is the original

claimant in both these appeals. In Claim Petition No.06/OA-

III/RCT/NGP/99, it booked 40 BCX(C) wagons to local railway

authorities for transportation of the consignment of 22,200 qtls.

of wheat from Khamgaon in Maharashtra to Bangarpet in

Karnataka, and paid an amount of Rs.11,29,120/- towards

freight charges. In Claim Petition No.07/OA-III/RCT/NGP/99,

the respondent booked I 15 box wagon for transportation of the

consignment of 8,520 bags of levey sugar from Chalisgaon to

New Jalpaiguri, and paid an amount of Rs.29,287/-

towards freight charges. The claim in both these petitions was

for refund of excess amount paid towards freight charges.

3. It is not disputed by the learned counsels appearing for

the parties that levy of freight depends upon the distance

covered for transportation of the goods from one place to

another. It is also an undisputed position that the freight has to

be charged on the basis of the shortest route, and if it is not

fa328.04.61.06.odt

available, then at the cheapest route, unless such shortest or

cheapest route is shown to be closed. This was required to be

made clear to the parties at the time of booking of consignments

so that the parties have an ample opportunity to know the route

by which the goods are being transported and to find out

whether the transportation is by the shortest or cheapest route.

4.

Undisputedly, in the present case, the shortest route for

the consignment booked on the route of Khamgaon in

Maharashtra to Bangarpet in Karnataka was of 1,493 kms.,

whereas the shortest route for transportation of consignment

from Chalisgaon to New Jalpaiguri was of 1,875 kms. The

freight charges were not levied on the basis of such shortest

route on the ground that these routes were closed. The freight

charges in respect of the consignment booked on the route of

Khamgaon to Bangarpet were levied on the basis of 1,547 kms.,

whereas for the consignment booked on the route of Chalisgaon

to New Jalpaiguri, the freight charges levied on 1,936 kms.

fa328.04.61.06.odt

5. There is nothing on record to show that the shortest

route available was closed and this was made known to the

respondent at the time of booking of the consignment, as

required by Rule 125 of the General Rules in Goods Tariff No.41

(Part I, Volume I). The Tribunal has considered this aspect of

the matter on the basis of two witnesses, viz. S.M. Khan and

Tobias Minj. Paras 10 and 11 of the judgment of the Tribunal in

Claim Petition No.06/OA-III/RCT/NGP/99, and paras 15 to 18 in

Claim Petition No.07/OA-III/RCT/NGP/99 deal with the claim of

the respondent. In the absence of any other evidence, I do not

find any reason to disturb the findings recorded by the Tribunal.

6. In the result, both these appeals are dismissed. No

order as to costs.

JUDGE.

Lanjewar