DAS GUPTA, - (1.) WHEN total charges payable in respect of goods traffic carried by a Railway are increased by the Railway Administration on the basis of terminals fixed by the Central government in pursuance of s. 32 of the Indian Railways Act, has the Railway Rates tribunal jurisdiction to investigate the reasonableness of the charge as thus increased ? That is the question raised in this appeal. Thefirst respondent, the Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd., manu-factures sugar in its Mills situated at Shamli. The sugarcane needed as its raw material has to be brought by the Company from different places in the neighbour hood. Itis in this connection that the appellant Railway Company's services are required. The Railway Company carries the sugarcane in trucks from several stations on its line, to Shamli. As the Mills premises are situated a short distance away from the station platform the Mills had at the verytime when it started functioning, a siding agreement with the Roy Company so that the trucks carrying the sugarcane are ultimately brought into the Mills siding from where the unloading takes place.
(2.) The nearest point of the Mills siding from the station platform at Shamli is about 100 to 150 ft. away. The Rly. locomotives bring the sugarcane trucks to this point - pt. A in the Plan - after which the Mills makes its own arrangement for taking them inside the sidings. After several increases from time to time which it is not necessary to mention, the charges payable in respect of sugarcane carried in the Railway Company's trucks and brought by the Railway Company's locomotives up to the point A stood on September 30, 1953, at the following figures :- JUDGEMENT_695_AIR(SC)_1960Html1.htm In each case a surcharge of annas 2 per rupee was added. Before this, however, on 20/02/1950, the central Govt., had made an order under s. 32 of the Indian Railways Act, the relevant portion of which is in these words :- ' In pursuance of section 32 of the Indian Rlys. Act, 1890(IX of 1890) the central government is pleased to fix the following rates of terminals, transshipment, short distance, percentage on value and percentage on excess value charges, namely1. TERMINAL CHARGES.(a) Goods Traffic(i) General Merchandise Eight pies per mound at each end where the railway-isrequired to do loading and unloading.Six pies per maund at each end, where the owners of the goods are required to do loading and unloading.......' In spite of this however the Railway Company did not levy any terminal charges in accordance with this rate up to September, 1953 and continued to charge at the rate mentioned above. On August 1, 1953 the Railway Company issued a Local Rate Advice the relevant portion of which was in these terms : - 'With effect from I-10-53 the following station to station rates will be introduced and will remain in force till further advice :- JUDGEMENT_695_AIR(SC)_1960Html2.htm The consequence of this was that with effect from October 1953 the total charges payable by the Mills roseconsiderably. From Rs. 3-8 formerly payable in respect of sugarcane carried from Ailum, Khandla, Khandraoli, Hind,Thanabhawan, the rate now payable became Rs. 11.12, Rs. 11-12, Rs. 11.2, Rs. 11.2 and Rs. 12.8 respectively while for sugarcane carried from Nanautta and Sona Arjunpur, the amount now payable was Rs. 13.5 and Rs. 14.1 in place of Rs. 4.4 and Rs. 4.4 payable prior to 1/10/1953. It was for relief against this increase that the Mills made acomplaint under s. 41(1) (i) of the Indian Railways Act to the Railway Rates tribunal. Relief in respect of certain other matters like rates on molasses, increase in siding charges, rates on coal, gunnies, limestone, firewood etc.,and rates on sugar was also asked for; but later all these prayers having been withdrawn at the hearing before the Tribunal. The tribunal bad to deal only with the Mills complaint as regards this increase in charges in respect of sugarcane.
(3.) THE main contention raised on behalf of the Railway Company was that as in increasing the charges the Administration had merely applied standardized terminal charges' no complaintlay in respect of the,same under S. 41(1)(i). THE Railway Company also further contended in this connection that considerable services, apart from the carriage of the goods, were rendered by the Company at each end and so, in any case, the terminal charges as standardized by notification by the Central government were legally levied. THE tribunal by a majority held that this was not a case of application of astandardized terminal charge and so it had jurisdiction to consider the question. Shri L.M. Roy and Shri V.Subrahmanyan who formed the majority were of opinion that services were rendered only at the loading station, and notat Shamli; so only Rs. 4.11 annas out of the terminal charge of Rs. 9.6 was reasonable and only this amount could belevied on sugarcane in addition to the conveyance chargesfrom the forwarding station. THEy ordered a reduction of terminal charge from Rs. 9.6 to Rs. 4.11. THE President of the tribunal Mr. Lokur, forming the minority, was of opinion that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the question of reasonableness. He was also of opinion that terminal services were rendered by the respondent Railways both at the loading station and also after the carriage was complete at Shamli. In our opinion, the tribunal (by which we mean the majority of the tribunal) was wrong in thinking that this was not a case of standardized terminal charges. The first argument which seems to have found favour with the majority and which was repeated here on behalf of the respondent was that while the government Notification fixed a terminal charge of 6 pies per maund at each end, where loading and unloading isdone by the owner, as in the present case, the Railway Company fixed . 9.6 per 4 wheeler as the terminal chargefor the two ends together irrespective of the maundagecarried. It is obvious that the charge of Rs. 9.6 isequivalent to charge of one anna, the total of 6 pies ateach end, per maund on 150 mds. It is urged that it mayvery well happen that some trucks will carry more than 150mds. and some less. The fixation of such a lump sum of Rs.9.6 is, it is contended, not an application of the charges fixed by the government, but quite a distinct arrangement. Inour opinion there is no substance in this contention. It does not appear to be disputed that on an average 200 mds.are carried in each 4 wheeler truck. Exhibit A-6 shows a number of bills for charges for the period February, 1953 toFebru 10/02/1953, for sugarcane carried from these stations to Shamli. The number of trucks for eachconsignment is mentioned as also the weight,carried. Ineach case we find 200 mds. mentioned as the weight. It isobvious and indeed undisputed that this statement of 200mds. as the weight is not made on actual weighs but is mentioned on the weight carried on the, basis of capacity. As regards the rate for carriage, it is common ground that charge is made per truck and not according to maundage. It also appears to be common ground that this charge is actually calculated on the basis of 15O mds. per truck. Weare unable to agree that when the central government fixed the charge at so much per mound it was intended that before any such charge could be levied the actual weight should be as certained by actual weighment. There is nothing to prevent the Railway Company and the consign or from entering into an agreement as to 'what should be accepted as weight without actual weighment. Once such a fixation is agreedupon, the amount calculated on that figure at the rate fixed by Government must be deemed to be the amount properly payable in accordance with the rate fixed by government. The fact that in some cases less than 150 mds. may be carried in a truck and in other cases more than 150 mds. maybe carried does not affect the position that the party whois to pay and the party who is entitled to payment haveaccepted a particular figure as the weight carried, withoutactual weighment. When therefore Rs. 9.6 is sought to belevied as the terminal charge being equivalent to 6 pice permaund on 150 mds. at each end, it is really an applicationof the charge fixed by the central government. Nor are we impressed with the argument that the words used in the Local Rate Advice of 1/08/1953, which has been set out above show that a standardized terminal charge was not being levied but some other rate is sought to be levied. It is no doubt true that this Advice quotes "station to station rate" -the amount being then mentioned in two parts, one obviously the rate for carriage, and the second the terminal charge. In fact the words "plus terminalcharge" are actually mentioned. The Railway Act has made a clear distinction between the rate and terminal charge. Theword "rate" is defined in S. 3 (13) as including "any fare, charge or other payment for the carriage of any passenger, animals orgoods; the word "terminals" is defined inclause 14 of the same section as including"charges in respect of stations, sidings, wharves, depots, warehouses, cranes and other similar matters, and of any services, rendered there at." The word "station to stationrate" is defined in S, 46C (g) as meaning "aspecial reduced rate applicable to a specific commodity booked between two specified stations". The same section also defines'class rate and "schedule rate". The first being defined as "rate fixed according to the class given to a commodity in the classification of goods" and the second as "the rate lower than the maximum or class rate applied on a commodity basis." We can seeno reason for not interpreting the word "rate" used in this section, (46G), as being" any fare charges or other payment for thecarriage of any passenger, animals or goods "as defined in S. 3(13). Thus interpreted "station to station rate" in respect of goods willmean. only ,.'. charge payable for carriage ofgoods as may be made specially applicable to a specific commodity booked between two specified stations for the carriage of the same. This would not include any charge made in addition to the charge for carriage.It must therefore be held that the words of the Local Advice Order stating the new station tostation rate as so much plus "so much for terminal charge" are not strictly accurate. The proper was of giving information to parties concerned would be to state the station tostation rate as consisting of the amount mentioned in the first part only -the charge for carriage -and to make a separate ammounce -699 ment as regards terminal charge. This in -accuracy in expression cannot however affectthe substance of the matter. The fact thatthe terminal charge was mentioned as a partof the station to station rate is no reason tothink that standardized terminal charges were not being applied. ;