S m subramaniyam judge –Thus, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the findings of the Railway Claims Tribunal in its order dated 14.03.2019 is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 79 of the Railways Act, 1989 and further the appreciation of facts and circumstances, interpretations of the provisions as well as the reasonings are also not in accordance with the established principles of law. Accordingly, the 35/38 [2/21, 17:39] Sekarreporter1: C.M.A.No.3545 of 2019 order impugned is liable to be set aside.

[2/21, 17:37] Sekarreporter1: C.M.A.No.3545 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.3545 of 2019
and
C.M.P.Nos.20674 & 20675 of 2019
1.Union of India,
Owning Southern Railway,
Rep.by its General Manager,
Southern Railway, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
2.Chief Goods Supervisor,
Korukkupet Goods, Southern Railway,
Chennai – 600 018. ..Appellants
Vs.
1.M/s.Mysore Mercantile Co., Ltd.,
Rep.by its Director / Authorized Signatory,
B.N.Choudhary,
No.203 & 202 Shreshta Bumi,
No.87, K.R.Road, Basavangudi,
Bengaluru – 560 004.
2.M/s.Container Corporation of India Ltd.,
Inland Container Deport, Ennore High Road,
Santhangadu, Thiruvottiyur,
Chennai – 600 019. ..Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23(1) of the
Railway Claim Tribunal Act, against the order dated 14.03.2019 passed
in OA (III) / 1 / 2018 by the Railway Claims Tribunal at Chennai.
1/38
[2/21, 17:38] Sekarreporter1: C.M.A.No.3545 of 2019
For Appellants : Mr.Vijay Anand M.
For Respondents : Mr.T.Rajamohan
[For R1]
Mr.D.Baskar
[For R2]
J U D G M E N T
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on hand is preferred against the
judgment dated 14.03.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Chennai Bench in OA(III)/1/2018.
2. The appeal is filed by the Union of India owning Southern
Railway represented by its General Manager.
3. The facts in nutshell as narrated by the appellants are that the 1st
respondent / M/s.Mysore Mercantile Co., Ltd., has filed a Claim Petition
under Section 36(b) & (c) before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai,
numbered as Complaint No.1/2015, with a prayer to declare that the
order passed by the 2
nd appellant / Chief Goods Supervisor in
proceedings No.KOKG/ICTD/Punitive charges/01/15 dated 13.01.2015
claiming punitive charges of Rs.22,35,310/- relating to the consignment
of Maize booked under Invoice No.2, RR No.212000009 dated
11.01.2015 for transportation from Shimoga Town to Inland Container
2/38
[2/21, 17:38] Sekarreporter1: C.M.A.No.3545 of 2019
endorsement made by the Chief Commercial Clerk, Tiruvalangadu
Taluk, is a rough calculation and cannot be construed as a conclusive
calculation, which is done by the Competent Authority and the statement
was also communicated to the first respondent and as per the said
statement, the excess loading was 316.54 MT. Thus, this Court is of an
opinion that the final assessment made by the Competent Authority is to
be taken for the purpose of imposing Punitive Charges and this Court
cannot rely on the endorsement made by the Chief Commercial Clerk in
his hand writing, which is not an order for proceedings issued under the
authority of law and such an endorsement cannot be relied upon to grant
further concession to the first respondent.
50. In this view of the matter, the appellants / Railways are
entitled to recover the punitive charges for the excess weighment of
316.54 MT. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the
findings of the Railway Claims Tribunal in its order dated 14.03.2019 is
not in consonance with the provisions of Section 79 of the Railways
Act, 1989 and further the appreciation of facts and circumstances,
interpretations of the provisions as well as the reasonings are also not in
accordance with the established principles of law. Accordingly, the
35/38
[2/21, 17:39] Sekarreporter1: C.M.A.No.3545 of 2019
order impugned is liable to be set aside.
51. Thus, the order dated 14.03.2019 passed by the Railway
Claims Tribunal, Chennai in OA(III)/1/2018 is set aside. The appellants
are directed to assess the penalty for the excess weighment of 316.54
MT and communicate the charges to be paid by the 1
st respondent. The
1
st respondent is directed to pay the demanded charges by the
appellants/Railways within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a demand from the appellants/Railways.
52. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in
C.M.A.No.3545 of 2019 stands allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
16.02.2021
kak
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
36/38

You may also like...