Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4 . Since, the rate Circular was not notified, the freight charged to the appellant was from a longer route while the goods were carried through the shorter route which had become operational on 16-02-2008. The West Central Railway ( in short "WCR') issued an amended WCR distance table on 10-06- 2009 with regard to Chord line between Bansapahar ( BNSP) to Ohan, which came into force with immediate effect. The aforesaid distance table was again amended by the respondent on 13-07-2009. The amendment was only to the extent of the length of the chord line. The appellant on realizing that the goods booked by it were carried through a shorter route and in fact, the freight of the longer route was charged, applying the doctrine of quantum meruit issued a notice under the provisions of Section 106(3) of Railways Act, 1989 and prayed to refund of excess freight paid. The respondents most illegally rejected the case of the appellant by recording reasons that the claims were time-barred whereas the respondent No.1 could not have rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that it was beyond time prescribed under Section 106(3) of the Railway Act, 1989.

5 . The Railway Board issued a Circular/Policy letter with regard to delegation of powers for settlement of time barred cases on 11-06-1995. Accordingly, the respondents could not have rejected the claim of refund of excess freight charged on the ground of a time-barred claim. The aforesaid policy was in effect upto 22-02-2010, when it was withdrawn by a subsequent policy from the date of issue of that policy. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has also in M/s. Maihar Cement Vs Union of India in WP No. 469/2009 vide order dated 25-04-2012 held that Circular dated 22-02-2010 is prospective and that judgment has attained finality. The appellant filed an application under Section 13(1)(b) of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 for refund of excess charges of freight within three years of the date on which the freight is paid to the Railways in terms of Section 17(1)(c) of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Since, the application before the Railway Claims Tribunal was already delayed, a separate application for condonation of delay was also filed in terms of Section 17(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 but, the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim of the appellant by a common judgment/order dated 20-04-2016.

( i i ) Claims of the appellant/applicant that the respondents have overcharged and collected excess freight is not reasonable/proved.

Accordingly decided the issue No.3 against the appellant/applicant that it is not entitled to any relief.

13. To resolve the controversy in appeals, the following two issues arises for determination:-

"7. That the applicant on realizing that the goods booked by it were carried through a shorter route when, in fact, the freight of the longer route was charged, applying the doctrine of quantum meruit issued a notice under the provisions of the section 106(3) of the Railways Act, 1989. The applicant also prayed for the grant of refund of the excess freight paid. A copy of the application/notice for refund dated 06.08.2009 received by the respondent on 10.08.2009."