9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (12) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l was competent under s. 41 (1) (c) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890. Mr. Bindra, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised in substance three points before us : ( 1 ) that on the pleadings the Tribunal was not justified in adjudicating upon the charges levied for the maintenance of the assisted siding; (2) that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction under s. 41 (1) (c) of the Act to determine the reasonableness of the charges levied for maintaining the assisted siding; and (3) that the tribunal had erred in holding that the Railway was not entitled to haulage charges for lines 3 and 4. In order to appreciate the points raised by the learned counsel it is necessary to give a few facts, as determined by the Tribunal. The respondent company was incorporated in the year 1932 with its registered office at Kamla Tower, Kanpur, in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Company erected a sugar mill at Majhowlia in the district of Champaran in the State of Bihar, and started manufacturing sugar in the year 1933. The bulk (1) [1967] 3 S.C R 219. of sugarcane required for the manufacture of sugar was transported to the respondent's mill from the sugarcane growing areas in the neighbourhood of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cost of shunting engine hour. On July 4, 1963, the respondent filed the complaint dated June 26, 1963, before the Tribunal. While the case was pending - the Railway increased the fixed charge of ₹ 779.56 to ₹ 3,134.88 per annum with effect from August 17, 1963. The description of the railway station and the lines is given by the Tribunal thus : Exhibit R. 2 is the sketch showing the position of the several lines at the Majhowlia station and also of the station buildings and goods shed. Lines numbers 1 and 2 marked in this sketch are the running lines. Lines numbers 3 and 4 are the transfer lines which constitute the assisted siding. Admittedly, lines numbers 3 and 4 are within railway premises and are completely on railway property. From the junction where these two lines meet there is another line proceeding to the complainants' factory. This line is entirely within the property owned by the complainants and it is the private siding of the com- plainants. Coming to the first point raised by the learned counsel; this point was debated before 'the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after examining the original complaint, the amendments made in it, and the evidence l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n which the parties actually went to trial should not be made the foundation for decision of another and different issue, which was not present to the minds of the parties and on which they had no opportunity of adducing evidence. But that rule has no application to a case where parties go to trial with knowledge that a particular question is in issue, though no specific issue has been framed thereon, and adduce evidence relating thereto. The rule applicable to this class of cases is that laid down in Rani Chandra Kunwar v. Chaudhri Narpat Singh(5)". In view of this decision we must overrule the contention of the learned counsel on this point because the Tribunal has found that the Railway was ready with the required evidence and no prejudice had been caused to it. Section 41 (1) (c) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, reads as follows : "41 (1) Any complaint that a railway administration- (a) is contravening the provisions of section 28, or (b) is charging for the carriage of any commodity between two stations a rate which is unreasonable, or (1) A.I.R. 1930 P.C. 57. (2) [1956] S.C.R. 451,461. (3) [1906-07] L.R. 34 I.A. 27. (c) is levying any other charge which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uot; 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 definition of the word "rate" cannot possibly be applied to s. 29(2) of the Act. Coming to the third point, the Tribunal after reviewing the evidence came to the following conclusion .lm15 " From the above discussions of the evidence, it is clear that the goods consigned to the complainants' mills and despatched from the mills cannot be effectively handled at the goods shed siding without the use of the assisted siding. Under the existing facilities at the station it is practically impossible to deal with the complainants' traffic at the goods shed. Any attempt in that direction would involve very heavy expenditure on the part of the railway and would also involve larger time and works as compared with time and labour involved in handling this traffic at the assisted siding. In other words, by handling complainants' traffic at the assisted siding the railway is really incurring less of cost and less of work than it would have to incur in attempting to deal with the traffic at the goods sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
