Nirmal Fibres (P) Ltd. vs Northern Railways & Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 3561 Del

$~42
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                   Judgment delivered on: 1st May, 2015


+     W.P.(C) 4386/2015
      NIRMAL FIBRES (P) LTD.                      ..... Petitioner
                    Represented by: Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, Sr. Adv.
                    with Mr. Anirudh Tanwar, Mr. Himanshu Gupta
                    ad Mr. Shrey Chathly, Advs.

                   versus

      NORTHERN RAILWAYS & ANR                     ..... Respondents
                   Represented by: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Sr. Standing
                   Counsel for Railways.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

      SURESH KAIT, J. (ORAL)

CM. No.7938/2015 (for exemption) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

+ W.P.(C) 4386/2015

1. Vide the present petition; petitioner seeks directions thereby directing the respondents to immediately dispatch the consignment of the petitioner from Harthala Station to Jagadhary Station in same quantity and in the same condition as was handed over to the respondents.

2. Further seeks directions not to levy any demurrage / wharf age charge on the petitioner for the illegal detention of the consignment at Harthala Station.

3. Facts in brief are that on 14.04.2015, the petitioner wanted to get one coal Rake (58 Boxes) delivered from JCSS Jayant Project - Singrauli to Harthala Station. Accordingly booked the said consignment with the respondent after seeking necessary permissions. Thereafter, the respondents issued a weigh bill and railway receipt no. 412000001 dated 15.04.2015 for a railway freight amount of Rs.55,98,764/-.

4. The petitioner thereafter came to know that the Harthala Station was not properly maintained and was not conducive for offloading the consignment. Moreover, the station being unsafe and congested for the consignment to be offloaded. There are restriction on the entry of trucks from 7 A.M. till 11 A.M. and from 4 P.M. to 9 P.M.

5. On knowing this, the petitioner immediately moved a request vide letter no. 48 dated 16.04.2014 to the respondents for rebooking the rake from Harthala Station to Jagadhary Station. On which, the permission was granted by the respondents and the petitioner was asked to pay an additional amount of Rs.16,68,030/-, which was paid vide receipt dated 22.04.2015. However, the rake of coal which was scheduled to be offloaded at Jagadhary on 22.04.2015 did not arrive at the said station.

6. The petitioner enquired about consignment, thereafter, received information on 27.04.2015 from the respondents whereby stated that the rebooking of order dated 15.04.2015 of rake has been cancelled by the Headquarter of the respondents / Department on 22.04.2015.

7. Mr. Rakesh Khanna, ld. Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had paid additional amount of Rs.

16,68,030/- for offloading the consignment at Jagadhary Station. Due to the reasons best known, the respondents could not do the needful. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be penalized for the wrong act of the respondents. The said consignment should be taken to the Jagadhary Station in the same quantity condition as was before handed over and the respondents should not impose any penal charges upon the petitioner for their own wrong.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Jagjit Singh, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on advance notice, seeks permission to take instructions from his clients. The same has been declined. Ld. Counsel submits that the petitioner initially booked the consignment to Harthala Station and thereafter changed his decision and paid an amount of Rs.16,68,030/-. The said request of the petitioner was initially accepted, however, rejected thereafter by the Headquarter of the respondents. This fact was conveyed to the petitioner on 27.04.2015. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay demurrage charges.

9. Upon hearing ld. Counsels for the parties, it is not in dispute that the respondent agreed to offload the consignment at Jagadhary. It is also not in dispute that the respondent had accepted the additional amount of Rs.16,68,030/-. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner was conveyed about the cancellation of order vide letter dated 27.04.2015, whereas, consignment was to be offloaded at Jagadhary on 22.04.2015.

10. In view of the facts recorded above, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents are at fault not to offload the consignment of the petitioner at Jagadhary on the scheduled date.

11. Accordingly, this Court directs the respondents to offload the

consignment of the petitioner at Jagadhary Station within one week from the receipt of this order.

12. It is made clear that respondents are not entitled to levy any demurrage or other charges on the consignment of the petitioner as the permission was granted by the respondent vide letter dated 20.04.2015 and pursuant thereto petitioner has already paid additional amount of Rs.16.68,030/-.

13. In view of above directions, the petition is allowed with no order as to costs.

CM. No.7937/2015 (Under Section 151 CPC) Dismissed as infructuous.

Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J

MAY 01, 2015 jg /RS