Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs M/S Fuel Sourcesindia Pvt. Ltd on 28 January, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010004422012
2025:GAU-AS:926
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MFA/31/2012
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON,
GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM
VERSUS
M/S FUEL SOURCESINDIA PVT. LTD.
SOHIL NIWAS, 3RD FLOOR, CHHETRIBARI ROAD, A.T. ROAD, GUWAHATI-1
For the Appellant(s) : Mrs. U. Chakraborty, Senior Standing Counsel
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Raimi, Advocate
Date of Hearing : 28.01.2025
Date of Judgment : 28.01.2025
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mrs. U. Chakraborty, the learned Senior Standing counsel
appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. D. Raimi, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Respondent.
Page No.# 2/5
2. This is an appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal
Act, 1987 challenging the judgment and order dated 13.12.2011 passed by
the learned Railway Claims Tribunal at Guwahati in Claim Application No.
OA.III/GHY/2003/0178 (Old No.OA.178/03) whereby the Railway Claims
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "learned Tribunal") had allowed the
said application holding inter alia that the respondent herein who was the
applicant in the said proceedings would be entitled to the excess amount to
the tune of Rs. 31,252/- along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of
the application till the date of the order and further @9% per annum from
the date of the order till the date of actual payment. In addition to that, the
appellant herein was directed to pay proportionate costs to the application
fee of Rs.1,827/- and the Legal Practitioner's Fee of Rs. 1,300/-.
3. To appreciate the facts involved in the instant proceedings which led to
the filing of the instant appeal is that the respondent herein who is the
applicant had submitted a claim application stating inter alia that in a train
load coal consisting of 41 wagons, type BCN/BCNA, the railways had
overcharged freights. It the case of the applicant that the total weight was
2363.1 MT and the permissible weight for loading and the freight charging
as per the Railway Rules was 2402.8 MT taking into account 58 MT for BCN
wagon and 58.8 MT for BCNA wagon. However, the Railway charged weight
at 2423.9 MT and thereby collected a huge amount of money as freight
including penalty. It is under such circumstances, the applicant sought for
refund of Rs.31,252/- along with interest and the costs.
4. The appellant herein as respondents filed their written statement
wherein the claim made by the applicant was denied. It was stated that in
Page No.# 3/5
the forwarding station, it was found that in certain wagon, the applicant had
loaded coal more than the permissible carrying capacity of plus 2 tonnes and
as such, the additional amount was charged along with the penal charges.
5. On the basis of the pleadings, four issues were framed by the learned
Tribunal on 05.04.2011. Amongst the four issues, Issue Nos. 2 and 3 are
being relevant which stipulates as to whether the respondent, i.e. the
appellant herein was justified in imposing the penal freight and if not,
whether the applicant who is the respondent herein has proven that they
have been wrongly charged the penal freight and entitled to the refund of
the penal freight. The learned Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated
13.12.2011 allowed the said application holding inter alia that as the
appellant herein could not prove the excess weight, the question of
realization of additional weight was not proper. In addition to that, it was
observed that the appellant herein had not submitted any valid document in
support of their claim. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had directed refund
of the said amount along with interest and costs as already stated herein
above. Being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed.
6. Ms. U. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant had submitted that the respondent herein had overloaded the coal
in certain wagons which was duly detected in the forwarding station. Taking
into account that the overloading was not much, the Railway Authorities
allowed the applicants to carry on the goods on payment of the additional
charges. The learned counsel further submitted that there was an
overcharge of Rs.978/- which was refunded but the Respondent herein did
not receive.
Page No.# 4/5
7. Per contra Mr. D. Raimi, the learned appearing on behalf of the
applicant who is the respondent herein had submitted that the question of
excess weight does not arise taking into account that the
applicant/respondent herein had loaded coal, even less than the quantity
permissible in a rack. He further submitted that the appellant herein could
not show any document to that effect that there was any excess weight and
under such circumstances, the learned Tribunal was justified in allowing the
claim petition filed by the applicant.
8. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties
and given my anxious consideration.
9. From the materials on record, this Court could not find any document
which would suggest that there was an overloading by the applicant which
the appellant herein ought to have proved before the learned Tribunal. Be
that as it may, this Court had put a specific query upon the learned counsel
for the Railways as to how the Appellant had permitted overweight when it is
the mandate of the proviso to Section 73 of the Railways Act, 1989 that in
the case of detection of overloading in the forwarding station, the Railway
Authorities should have unloaded the said excess load and recovered the
cost of such unloading and any charge for the detention of any wagon in
that regard. The learned counsel however submitted that taking into account
that the weight did not exceed much, the Railway Authorities have permitted
to carrying out the load and the applicant did not raise any protest then.
10. This Court has duly taken note of the proviso to Section 73 and from
the said, it is seen that the Railway Administration could not have permitted
carrying out of any load beyond the capacity of the wagon that too, when it
Page No.# 5/5
is detected at the forwarding station.
11. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that as the
Appellant has failed to prove that there was an additional weight which was
detected at the forwarding station as was held by the learned Tribunal and
further, they could not have permitted overloading of the wagons when
detected at the forwarding station. The charges of the additional amount
from the applicant was therefore unauthorized.
12. Under such circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the instant
appeal for which the appeal stands dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.
5,000/-.
13. The Registry is directed to forthwith send back the LCR to the learned
Court below.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
