Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The Tribunal allowed the Claim Petition.

5. The 1st respondent in his complaint, has contended that 39,638 bags of maize purporting to weigh 60 kgs per bag was transported from Shimoga Town to Inland Container Depot at Tondiarpet, Chennai. The total weight as declared by the 1st respondent was 2484 MT loaded in 41 wagons. At the destination station at Tondairpet Inland Container, when the goods arrived, the 2nd appellant has done the re-weighment in transit at Tiruvalangadu Electronic In-motion Weigh Bridge and at that point of time, it was detected that there was an excess in weighment to the tune of 316.50 MT on 13.01.2015. Therefore, the 2nd appellant had levied a penalty of Rs.22,35,310/- for the excess load loaded by the 1 st https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ respondent. The calculations of excess weight per wagon had been worked out and the same was accompanied with the notice sent to the 1st respondent.

16. The 1st respondent defended the contentions of the appellants / Railways by stating that the 1st respondent is a dealer and exporter of Food grains. The 1st respondent had availed the services of Railways for transporting the Maize consignments. The 1st respondent is the named consignee of 39638 bags of Maize each weighing 60 Kgs transported from Shimoga Town to Inland Container Depot at Chennai Tondiarpet vide Invoice No.2, Railway Receipt No.212000009 dated 11.01.2015. The consignment was booked after doing necessary weighment of each lorry load at Shimoga and loaded as per the given carrying capacity of the wagons. The total weight of the consignment loaded in 41 wagons is 2484 MT. The consignment was accepted at the booking station recording the actual weight of each of the wagons and the freight was charged for the carrying capacity of 41 wagons namely 2521 MT and accordingly, the freight was prepaid at the forwarding station. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ consignment was booked at Railway rate risk as only one rate of booking is available for the commodity of Maize booked and the entry as if booked under Owner Risk was made wrongly in the Railway Receipt. The trainload was re-weighed at Tiruvalanagadu in-motion weigh bridge and that an alleged excess weight of 248.14 MT was noticed and demand was issued by the 3rd respondent for an excess of 316.54 MT as against the alleged weight of 248.14 MT recorded at Tiruvalangadu. The 2nd appellant issued a demand letter bearing Ref.No.KOKG/ICDT/Punitive charges/01/15 dated 13.01.2015 for Rs.22,35,310/- for the train load of 41 wagons on the ground that while making re-weighment at in motion weigh bridge at Tiruvalanagadu, an excess weight of 316.54 MT was detected and charging the 1st respondent to the difference in the weight and was also called upon to pay the same.