Bombay High Court
Union Of India,Thr.General Manager vs Food Corpn. Of India Thr.Dist.Manager on 7 March, 2016
Author: R.K. Deshpande
Bench: R.K. Deshpande
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.::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:04:23 ::: 3
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 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:04:23 ::: 4 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.
::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:04:23 ::: 5fa328.04.61.06.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 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:04:23 :::