Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) By this order, I propose to decide FAO Nos. 707, 6294, 6300, 6343 to 6398, 6400 to 6402, 6404 to 6419, 6421 to 6453, 6459 to 6490, 6493 to 6496, 6498 to 6504, 6506 to 6520, 6522 to 6537, 6539 to 6554, 6556 to 6575, 6577 to 6592, 6636 to 6779, 6781 to 6783, 6785, 6787, 6790 to 6792, 6795 to 6799, 6801 to 6808, 6813 to 6962, 6978 to 7026, 7032 to 7165, 7174 to 7404, 7556 and 7797 to 7878 of 2014 all titled as M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Delhi Versus The Union of India through General Manger, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi preferred against a common order dated 27.11.2013 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Claims Tribunal') whereby the claim of amount paid in excess by the appellant to the respondent -railways between the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2010 along with application for condonation of delay under Sec. 17(1) and (2) of The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Tribunal Act, 1987'), stand dismissed on the grounds of being not maintainable as the statutory notice as required under Sec. 106(3) of The Railways Act, 1989, has not been served within the period of six months as prescribed and further that the explanation given for the delay in preferring the claim application does not merit acceptance.
(2.) Briefly the facts are that the appellant had been using the services of the respondent -railways for ferrying its various petroleum products from Asaudah Railway Station, District Rohtak to various destinations. Undisputedly, the competent authority to notify the distance between the different Railway Stations is the Chief Goods Supervisor and the freight charges were levied according to the notified distance between the destinations. With the installation of computerised railway freight charges system called Terminal Mechanism System (TMS) at Asaudah Railway Station, Computerised Railway Receipts (CRR) were started to be issued with effect from 27.02.2011. It then came to light that the respondent had been making illegal recovery of freight charges for the petroleum products which were being despatched by the appellant through Railway Tank Wagons from Asaudah to sixteen different destinations by wrongly projecting the distance in excess than the actual distance. For example, the distance between Asaudah Railway Station, District Rohtak (Haryana) and Partapur, District Meerut (Uttar Pradesh) as notified by the Chief Goods Supervisor, was 125 kilometres, whereas under the TMS, the distance came out to 100 kilometres i.e. freight for 25 kilometres in excess was being charged by the respondent -railways from the appellant. The claims for refund of this excessively charged freight have been made in these appeals for the period 01.04.2008 to 30.03.2011 for these sixteen destinations.
(3.) As all these claims are based upon similar set of facts and pleadings between the same parties as also the dispute involved is the same, except for the destination stations and accordingly the excess distance for which freight has been charged, the date of issuance of the railway receipts, the amount claimed and the number of days for which the condonation of delay is being sought. The counsel for the parties stated that FAO No. 707 of 2014 be taken as the lead case. They have put forth their respective arguments and submissions with reference to the pleadings therein and, therefore, the basic facts have been taken therefrom.;