- (1.) This misc. appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter 'the 1987 Act') has been filed against the order dated 8-11-1996 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') dismissing appellant's-claimant (hereinafter 'the claimant') claim petition for refund of Rs.42,214.68 allegedly wrongly charged on account of wharfage and demurrage.
(2.) The facts of the case are that in respect of a consignment booked by the claimant with respondents Railways (hereinafter 'the Railways') dispute arose on arrival of the consignment at Bharatpur with regard to quantity received, as apparently the packaging of the consignment was disturbed and out of 5 bundles of steel bars consigned only three and a half bundles were available in the railway van. Requests for reweighing made were refused. Representations for the purpose moved before the Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway was also rejected. Since the Railways refused to reweigh the consignment, the claimant had no option but to take delivery of the consignment under protest on 21-7-1988 in the presence of a Notary Public and a representative of Bharatpur Chamber of Commerce and Industry. On reweighing of the consignment as collected from Railways, a certificate was issued by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Bharatpur regarding shortage of goods received as against the goods consigned through the Railways duly received. Shortage of 11.480 metric ton was certified.
(3.) Owing to the aforesaid dispute with regard to consignment being received short at Bharatpur, it appears that the consignment was not deboarded from the railway van nor was it thereafter timely cleared from the railway siding. In these circumstances, the Railway Administration demanded Rs.28,332/-as demurrage and wharfage charges from the consignee (now the claimant) which amount was paid under protest on 27-1-1988. According to the claimant demurrage and wharfage on the goods in issue were occasioned by the obstinate inaction of the Railways in refusing to reweigh the consignment in spite of the apparent shortage of about one and a half bundles of steel bars. This had resulted in the delay in deboarding the consignment from railway van or carrying it away within permissible time from the railway siding. The delays were thus attributable not to the claimant but to Railways and demurrage and wharfage charges were consequently unwarranted. A Notice under Section 78-B of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter 'the 1989 Act') were sent to Railways seeking refund of the wharfage and demurrage charges aforesaid levied against the claimant and recovered unjustifiably. The claim was however not settled by the Railways.;