2014 (1) TMI 1808 - HC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction of Tribunal in Petition for refund - wrongly charged on account of wharfage and demurrage - shortage of goods received as against the goods consigned through the Railways duly received - Held that - Jurisdiction of the Tribunal is inter alia limited to claims for refund of fares or refundable freight. Section 2(o) of the 1987 Act provides that words and expressions used and not defined in the Act of 1987 but defined in the Railways Act 1989 or the rules made thereunder shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Act or the said rules. A bare look at Section 13 (1) (b) of the 1987 Act indicates that claim before the Tribunal have to relate inter alia to the refund of the freight or fares. The Tribunal has not been conferred jurisdiction to entertain claims for refund of the wharfage or demurrage. It is worthwhile noting that charge towards freight is a contractual charge for the carriage of goods while both demurrage and wharfage are in the nature of penalty/ demage to the railways for breach of the consignee s obligation to clear the van carrying the goods and thereafter railway sidings within permissible free time. As stated earlier freight thus cannot be equated with wharfage and demurrage. In considered opinion, in the state of conclusions drawn on the interpretation of Section 13 (1) (b) of the 1987 Act, the learned Tribunal cannot be said to have erred or otherwise wrongfully refused to exercise its jurisdiction on the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Railway Claims Tribunal under the 1987 Act regarding refund of wharfage and demurrage charges.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute between a claimant and the Railways regarding the refund of charges levied on account of wharfage and demurrage. The claimant's consignment arrived with a shortage, leading to delays in deboarding and clearance, resulting in the Railways demanding demurrage and wharfage charges. The claimant sought a refund, but the Railways did not settle the claim, prompting the claimant to file a petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, citing its jurisdiction limited to refund of freight under the 1987 Act, not extending to wharfage and demurrage.

The jurisdiction of the Railway Claims Tribunal is governed by the 1987 Act, conferring specific powers and authority. Section 13(1) of the Act outlines the Tribunal's jurisdiction, limited to claims for refund of fares or freight paid for goods carried by railways. The Act defines freight, demurrage, and wharfage distinctly, with freight being the charge for carriage, demurrage for detention of rolling stock, and wharfage for not removing goods from railways within free time. The Tribunal's jurisdiction does not cover claims for refund of wharfage or demurrage, as these charges are penalties for delays in clearance, not contractual charges for carriage.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal's view on jurisdiction was unjustifiably restrictive, citing a Gujarat High Court judgment to support the contention that all charges incurred during the carriage of goods should fall under the Tribunal's purview. However, the judge held that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is clearly defined in the 1987 Act, and the separate definitions of freight, demurrage, and wharfage in the 1989 Act cannot be combined into a single concept for jurisdictional purposes. The judge concluded that the Tribunal did not err in refusing to exercise jurisdiction over the claim for refund of wharfage and demurrage charges.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to claims for refund of freight under the 1987 Act and does not extend to claims for refund of wharfage and demurrage charges. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's dismissal of the claim petition due to lack of jurisdiction over the specific charges in question.