[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs M/S Megha Technical And Engineering ... on 6 January, 2026
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010109692019
2026:GAU-AS:117
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MFA/155/2019
UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY,
GUWAHATI, MALIGAON, PIN- 781011, ASSAM.
VERSUS
M/S MEGHA TECHNICAL AND ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.
MAYUR GARDEN, 2ND FLOOR, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI-5, DIST.- KAMRUP,
ASSAM, PIN- 781005.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B SARMAH, MR G GOSWAMI
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. K P MAHESWARI, MS. N HUSSAIN,MS. M SHARMA
:: BEFORE ::
(HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA)
Advocate(s) for the Appellant : Mr. G. Goswami,
Advocate.
Advocate(s) for the Respondent : Ms. M. Sharma,
Advocate.
Date on which judgment is reserved : 04.09.2025.
Page No.# 2/3
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 06.01.2026.
Whether the pronouncement is of the
operative part of the judgment? : YES.
Whether the full judgment has been
pronounced? : YES.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. G. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. M. Sarma, the
learned counsel representing the respondent.
2. This is an appeal under Section 23 of the of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging
the judgment and order dated 06.02.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in
Claim Application No.OA-III-141/2011.
3. On 09.03.2011, the respondent filed the claim application before the Tribunal under Section 16 of
the Railway Claims Act, 1987.
4. The application was filed challenging three decisions of the Railways. They are- (1) the Railways
have recovered excess amount by working out the freight for covering a distance of 708 kms., which
should be only 695 kms. and as per the rate prescribed, the correct chargeable rate was ₹507.60 paise
per M.T. but the tariff was taken at a higher rate. Thus, the respondent prayed for refund of the excess
tariff, (2) the Railway authority at the destination station, at the time of delivery, wrongly and illegally
collected undercharges to the tune of ₹2,95,658/-, which the respondent claimed to be refunded and (3)
at the forwarding station, the Railway administration had erroneously collected terminal charges of
₹1,04,960/- for the consignment booked under train load condition since as per Railway Board Circular
No.TCR/1078/2007/06 dated 29.05.2007, 17.07.2007 and 18.09.2007, the terminal charges are not
applicable in bagged consignment. So, the respondent is not entitled to pay terminal charges.
5. The appellant filed the written statement and claimed that since the terminal charges and
overcharges were collected by the forwarding station, the present respondent has no authority to
question that matter. The appellant claimed that the overcharges were rightly collected as per Section
74 of the Railways Act since overweight was found when it was reweighed. The appellant has stated
that as per Section 78 of the Railways Act, they possessed the right to reweigh before delivery and
without prior notice to the customer.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of both sides, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the requirement of notice under Section 106 of Railways Act has been fulfilled?
2. Whether the applicant holds valid title?
3. Whether the applicants entitled to refund of excess freight, terminal charges and
overcharges/punitive charges, as claimed and if entitled, to what extent?
4. Reliefs and costs.
7. At the time of hearing, none of the parties adduced oral evidence. They relied upon some
Page No.# 3/3
documents namely- Railway Receipt, copy of payment of PUC receipt etc.
8. Finally, the Tribunal partly allowed the application of the respondent directing the appellant to
refund- (1) ₹3,23,824/- being the excess freight collected for wrong reckoning of distance and towards
overcharge collected at the destination with interest @ 6% p.a. In addition to that, the appellant was
directed to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- being the application fee and the legal practitioner's fee. The
Tribunal further directed that the appellant may recover ₹28,166/- from General Manager, Eastern
Railway, Kolkata.
9. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, the appellant filed the present appeal.
10. While deciding the issue, whether the requirement of notice under Section 106 of the Railways
Act was fulfilled? The Tribunal relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that was delivered
in M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No(s). 21862 of
2017]. In this judgment, the Supreme Court has held that that collection of freight made on the basis of
distances recorded were admitted inaccurate on the basis of the admission made by the respondent
itself and consequently the freight collected was illegal, for which notice under Section 106 is not
necessary.
11. In this case, the appellant Railways never admitted the distance covered to be inaccurate and also
never admitted that the freight collected was illegal. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the said judgment is not applicable in this case. The provision of law under Section
106 of the Railways Act should have been complied with by the present respondent before filing the
claim application. No such notice was issued by the respondent.
12. The appellant Railways never challenged the title of the respondent over the consignment it
carried on behalf of the respondent.
13. I have already mentioned hereinbefore that the appellant Railways never admitted that the freight
was charged on the basis of inaccurate distance recorded. Therefore, the ratio laid down in M/S.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation (supra) is not applicable in the present case.
14. The claim petition of the respondent is bad for non-compliance of the provision of Section 106 of
the Railways Act, 1989. The learned Tribunal has erroneously oriented itself and arrived at an incorrect
finding.
15. For the aforesaid reason, the appeal is allowed. The impugned the judgment and order dated
06.02.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in Claim Application No.OA-III-
141/2011, is set aside.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Send back the TCR.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
