9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of adjudicating upon charges levied for the maintenance of the assisted siding. 2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 41(1)(c) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890. 3. Entitlement of the Railway to haulage charges for lines 3 and 4. Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of Adjudicating Upon Charges Levied for the Maintenance of the Assisted Siding: The appellant argued that the Tribunal was not justified in adjudicating upon the charges levied for the maintenance of the assisted siding based on the pleadings. The Tribunal reviewed the original complaint, amendments, and evidence, concluding that the respondent was entitled to raise the question of the revision of hauling charges. The Tribunal noted, "In seeking for such correction being made in the complaint the complainants were not obliged to attack the increase under the aforesaid item as unreasonable... It has also to be mentioned that the respondent was not, in any way, misled by the allegations contained in the complaint and that no surprise was sprung on the respondent by pressing the complainants' case against the increase on account of interest and maintenance charges." The Tribunal held that the reasonableness of all charges levied by the respondent in respect of the assisted siding could and ought to be considered under issue number 4. The Supreme Court found no misdirection by the Tribunal in this conclusion. The Court referenced the Privy Council's decision in Siddik Mahomed Shah v. Mt. Saran, noting that "no amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was never put forward." However, the Court clarified that this rule does not apply when parties go to trial with knowledge of a particular issue, even if no specific issue has been framed. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's finding that the Railway was ready with the required evidence and no prejudice had been caused was correct. 2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal Under Section 41(1)(c) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890: The appellant contended that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction under Section 41(1)(c) to determine the reasonableness of charges levied for maintaining the assisted siding. Section 41(1)(c) allows complaints to the Tribunal if a railway administration "is levying any other charge which is unreasonable." The appellant argued that this should be limited to charges for carriage of goods, not hauling charges. However, the Court referenced its decision in Union of India v. Indian Sugar Mills Association, which interpreted "any other charge" broadly to include charges for services beyond statutory duties. The Court stated, "The definition of 'rate' cannot be applied to the expression 'rates of any other charges'... Here the word 'rates' merely means the scale or amount of any other charges." The Court upheld that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 41(1)(c) as it related to the reasonableness of the charges for the assisted siding. 3. Entitlement of the Railway to Haulage Charges for Lines 3 and 4: The Tribunal reviewed the evidence and concluded that the Railway was not entitled to haulage charges for lines 3 and 4. It found that handling the respondent's traffic at the assisted siding involved less cost and work for the Railway than handling it at the goods shed siding. The Tribunal stated, "The services rendered by the respondent railway in connection with the handling of complainants' goods traffic at the assisted siding cannot be said to be any special or extra service... the claim for the haulage charge for the shunting operation done at the assisted siding is unjustified and unsustainable." The Supreme Court noted that this was a finding of fact by the Tribunal, supported by ample evidence, and found no reason to displace it. The Court emphasized that it was not sitting as a regular court of appeal from the Tribunal's decisions and would not ordinarily go into questions of fact. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs, upholding the Tribunal's findings on all three issues. The Tribunal was justified in adjudicating upon the charges, had jurisdiction under Section 41(1)(c), and correctly found that the Railway was not entitled to haulage charges for lines 3 and 4.
|
