9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es 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 Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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. 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 ₹ 28,332/-as demurrage and wharfage charges from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition on account of it lacking jurisdiction, as according to it, its jurisdiction was limited to consideration of cases of refund of freight which was differentially defined under the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter `the Act of 1989) as against the wharfage and demurrage. Hence this appeal. Mr. Suresh Goyal, the learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken a wholly unjustifiably restrictive and illegal view of the matter by holding that freight, wharfage and demurrage are distinct and separate from each other for the purposes of its jurisdiction. He submitted that whatever the nomenclature of the charges i.e. freight, wharfage and demurrage, they were all expanded by the customer of railways in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 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. Section 2 (17) of the 1989 Act defines the freight to mean the charge levied for the carriage of goods including transhipment charges, if any. Section 2 (11) of the 1989 Act distinctly defines demurrage to mean the charge levied for the detention of any rolling stock after the expiry of free time, if any, allowed for such detention. Section 2 (41) of the 1989 Act defines the wharfage to mean the charge levied on goods for not removing them from the railway after the expiry of the free time for such removal. It is no doubt true that freight, wharfa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
