AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.D. Shah, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 20-11-1996 passed in Claim Application No. 832 of 1989 (TA III) by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, whereby the claim of the appellant for refund of excess freight of Rs. 1,26,230/- was dismissed.
Briefly, the facts are that various rakes of fertilizers were booked by the appellant from Kalol destined to several places through Railway. Due to failure on the part of the Railway to supply adequate number of wagons within 72 hours as stipulated by circulars, goods could not be loaded. The appellant therefore filed Special Civil Suit No. 20 of 1988 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Mehsana for refund of excess freight of Rs. 1,26,230/-. Said suit was transferred to Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench. Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim of the appellant vide judgment and order dated 20-11-1996 passed in Claim Application No. 832 of 1989 (TA III). Hence, the present appeal.
Heard learned Counsel, Ms. Mauna M. Bhatt for the appellant and Mr. B.I. Mehta for the respondent.
It is submitted by learned Counsel, Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt for the appellant that the appellant could not load the goods within 72 hours as the vagons are supplied by the belatedly by the Railways. It is also submitted that the circular was issued subsequently and hence, it would have only prospective effect and hence, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of train load clause. Hence, refund of excess freight of Rs. 1,26,230/- claimed by the appellant could not have been denied by the learned Tribunal. No other submissions have been canvassed by learned Counsel for the appellant.
Learned Counsel for the respondent, Mr. B.I. Mehta submitted that the impugned judgment and order is after considering the entire documentary evidence on record. He further submitted that since the appellant did not perform its part of the contract, the appellant would not be entitled to the benefit of train load clause. He therefore urged dismissal of the appeal.
The short point involved in this case whether the Circular dated 11-11-1994 issued by the Railway Board would have a retrospective effect or not. This Court has gone through the said circular and it appears that the said Circular dated 1-11-1994 would have only prospective effect and hence, if the wagons are supplied after 72 hours for cases prior to 1-11-1994, the benefit of train load classification cannot be granted. Hence, the findings arrived at by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal being just and proper are not required to be interfered with and the appeal is required to be dismissed.
Appeal is dismissed.