APHC010262772022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI eg m Mi THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs: 199 and 201 OF 2022 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 199 OF 2022 Appeal Under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against the Judgment Dt-08-02-2022 in O.A. No.2 of 2015 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, at Guntur. Between: Harmony Foods PVT.LTD.,, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, having its Office at E-Block, Plot No.29, IDA Auto Nagar, Visakhapatnam-12, Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its duly constituted attorney Mr.Ashok Kumar Daga, son of Late L.R.Daga, aged about 69 years. Resident of House No.5-16-16. II Floor, Jain Building, N.C.S. Road, Vizianagaram- 535001, A.P. ...Appellant AND 1. The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, the West Central Railway, Headquarters Office, Annexe Building, Indra Market, PO - Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. 2. The Union of India Rep. by its General Manager, the East Coast Railway, Chandrashekarapur, ECoRSadan, PO - Bhuvaneshwar, Orissa-751017. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRIMAN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI MALLAMPALLI SRINIVAS (CENTRAL GOVTCOUNSEL) CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 201 OF 2022 Appeal Under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against the Judgment in O.A. No. 1 of 2015 dated 08-02-2022, before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, at Guntur. Between: Harmony Foods Pvt. LTD. Companies Act, having its Office at E-Block a Company incorporated under the Indian Plot No.29, IDA Auto Nagar, Visakhapatnam-12, Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its duly constituted attorney Mr.Ashok Kumar Daga, son of Late L.R.Daga, aged about 69 years. Resident of House No.5-16-16, II Floor, Jain Building, N.C.S. Road 535001, A. P. Vizianagaram- ...Petitioner AND 1. The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, Railway, Headquarters Office, Annexe Building, Indra Market Madhya Pradesh. 2. The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, the East Coast Railway, Chandrashekarapur, ECoRSadan, PO . Bhuvaneshwar, Orissa-751017. the West Central PO . Jabalpur, ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRIMAN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI MALLAMPALLI SRINIVASfCENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: / <!' ' 1 APHC010262772022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs: 199/2022 AND 201 OF 2022 Between: 1. HARMONY FOODS PVT.LTD. COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT E-BLOCK, PLOT N0.29, IDA AUTO NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM-12, ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MR.ASHOK KUMAR DAGA, SON OF LATE L.R.DAGA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.5-16-16. II FLOOR, JAIN BUILDING, N.C.S. ROAD, VIZIANAGARAM-535001, A.P. A j} ...APPELLANT AND 1.THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, THE WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, ANNEXE BUILDING, INDRA MARKET, PO - JABALPUR, MADHYA PRADESH. 2.THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, THE EAST COAST RAILWAY, CHANDRASHEKARAPUR, ECORSADAN, PO - BHUVANESHWAR, ORISSA-751017. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Appellant; 1.SRIMAN Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.MALLAMPALLI SRINIVAS(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 3 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN C.M.A.Nos.199 of 2022 and 201 of 2022 COMMON ORDER:- These two appeals are preferred against the common Judgment passed in OA.III Nos.l & 2 of 2015 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench at Guntur. The claims are preferred by the appellant for refund of 2. Rs.7,15,075/- and Rs.7,33,104/- along with interest @ 18% purported to be excess freight charges collected and the same came to be rejected. 3. The appellant had purchased 2658 MT of wheat and the consigner/seller was supposed to deliver the said goods to Visakhapatnam. The seller through appellant agent got booked aforesaid consignment for transportation from Mandidip, Madhya Pradesh to Visakhapatnam. Based on forwarding note, the agent has booked the consignment on 07.11.2014 for carriage of 2658 MT of wheat, for which, the respondent/railway issued Railway Receipt, in terms of which, the goods were supposed to be routed and charged via ET-AMLA-NRKR-NGP-AJNI-SEGM-WR-MJRI-BPQ-MAGH- VHGN-PDPL-WL-DKJ-MTMI-KLBZA-NDD-RJY which covers a distance of 1383 KM by applying tariff of Rs.1519.30 per MT and the applied charges came to be collected. Accordingly, the goods loaded and later transported and delivered. Similarly, yet another consignment of 2652 MT of wheat was transported by loading Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh to be delivered at Visakhapatnam. The agent had booked the consignment on forwarding note and Railway Receipt came to be issued on 28.11.2014, were at as per which, the consignment had to be routed and charged via NSZ-BPL-AMU\- NRKR-NGP-AJNI-SEGM-WR-MJRI-BPQ-MAGH-VHGN-PDPL-WL-DKl- MTMI-KI-BZA covering a distance of 1459 KMs. The tariff for transportation was routed at the rate of Rs. 1623.60 per MT and the said consignment was accordingly delivered, having realized that the The appellant later consignments were charged based wrong route and that the respondents have delivered the on same by rerouting through shorter distance, issued legal notice claiming refund of excess amount charged. As there for was no response from the railways, ultimately the appellant preferred two independent applications before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Branch at Guntur. The appellant has taken stand that the rerouted the consignments through shorter respondents have route covering only 5 1194 KM from Mandidip and 1274 KM from Vidisha to reach Visakhapatnam. However, as per RR they have collected for distance of 1383 KM and 1459 KM respectively. The respondents have filed counter denying the claim made 4. by the appellant. On behalf of the appellant, one Mr. Ashok Kumar, Manager and Power of Attorney Holder got examined as AWl and marked 5. Ex.Al to AlO in O.A.No.III 1 / 2015 and Ex.Al to AlO in OA III 2/2015. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined; however, Ex.Rl to R3 came to be marked in both the O.As. 6. Based on the pleadings and evidence let in, the Tribunal had framed the following issues: 1. Whether the claim maintainable? 2. Whether the claim application is properly signed and veriifed by the Applicant? 3. Whether the excess freight has been charged? 4. Whether valid notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act has been served by the Applicant? 5. To what relief? With respect to issues 1, 2 and 4, the Tribunal has answered 7. the same in favour of appellant on maintainability, competence of Power of Attorney Holder to institute the claims and mandatory 6 requirement of issuance of notice before preferring claims. While dealing with the 3'"'* issue, the Tribunal has recorded finding that the appellant did not have locus standi to institute the claim for refund and that there was no evidence on record to show that the consignments were rerouted through a shorter distances. That neither agent nor consigner have placed any evidence on record to show that they were coerced nor they had submitted any written protest on the grievance of movement and charging of goods in view of rationalizing route. In view of these findings, the Tribunal dismissed both the O.As. Assailing the said common judgment, the present appeals are 8. preferred. Heard Sri Sriram, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Mallampalli Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing on behalf of Respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that admittedly as the goods consignment were booked based on rationalization scheme to be transported in longer route despite feasibility of shorter route and having regard to the fact that the goods were 10. indeed transported in shorter route, charges and collecting tariff for longer route is in clear breach of contract and hit by Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act. He further contended that the respondents cannot take shelter of Section 69 of the Indian Railways Act which provides indemnity for railways on deviation of route, in case of congestion or operational constraints, in as much as, no evidence has been let in by the railways to show there was really such congestion and operational reasons. He placed reliance on the judgment rendered in Union of India and others Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited^ to contend that by applying the principle enunciated under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, the claim made by appellant for refund has to be allowed, in as much as, the appellant was made to pay tariff for longer distance which came to be paid only on account of coercion. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/Railways tried to support the impugned common order by contending that the Tribunal upon consideration of both oral and documentary evidence has rightly come to the conclusion that the agent knowing well the route through which the goods were supposed to be 11. ' AIR 1997 ORISSA 77 8 transported has booked the consignments and even the cross- examination of AWl clearly admitted to the said factum that there was no protest recorded at any point of time on the longitivity of the route and only after the goods were delivered to the destination, the present claims came to be instituted which is clearly an afterthought. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Tribunal cannot be said to frivolous and accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeals. 12. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that appellant is the end beneficiary being 13. buyer of consignment goods. The goods were booked for transportation through agent. The agent initially based on the forwarding note has booked the consignments i.e.. i) From Mandidip, Madhya Pradesh to Visakhapatnam on 07.11.2014 and ; ii) From Vidisha to Visakhapatnam on 28.11.2014. 14. The Railway Receipt (RR) issued for these consignments specifically refer to the Route Charged via the station through which the routes have to pass through and arrived at the total distance. mM. 9 The consignment was to travel at a distance of 1383 km and 2 nd consignment at a distance of 1459 km respectively. The tariff charged was Rs. 1519.30 per MT and Rs. 1623.60 per MT respectively. The agent has paid aforesaid charges while booking the consignments and both the consignments ultimately came to be delivered as Visakhapatnam. There is no dispute of aforesaid facts. However, after delivery of consignments, the appellant had entertained doubt regarding the route through which these goods were transported and the appellant issued a Statutory Notice under Section 106 of the Act on 07.01.2015 claiming that they came to know that the wagons arrived at Visakhapatnam through shorter route than the route mentioned in RR, therefore, claimed for refund of excess freight along with interest. As there was no response, yet another reminder came to be issued on 04.04.2015 and thereafter instituted the present claims. The evidence on record, in particular documentary as well as that of AWl except stating that the goods have been transported through short distance, nothing has been concretely provided and established to show that there was change or deviation in route differing from that contemplated in RR. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to submit that the deviation 10 is admitted and not denied by the respondents in the written statement. As the claim is instituted by appellant, the initial burden of proof lies on it to establish that there is change/reroute of the original route and secondly the number of kilometers the wagons travelled in the said reroute has to be demonstrated and established in order to quantify the excess of tariff collected. The evidence placed on record does not even remotely suggest that wagons were moved in a particular route covering specified distance. In the absence of such evidence which the appellant miserably failed to establish, it cannot be said that even if the fact of not sticking on to original route and deviating is not denied in the written statement, that same would not entitle the appellant for refund of the amounts claimed. Going to the aspect of applying the principle laid down under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, in order to apply the same, has to show that there is a breach of contract and that the amount was paid by appellant by mistake or under coercion for undertaking the delivery of consignments. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence has recorded finding that the agent who booked the consignments had well in advance knew the route 15. one i' ') 11 through which the consignments would pass and even AWl during cross-examination admitted to the factum that the agent had informed them that the consignments were sent through the shortest route available. Besides when there is no written protest made, it cannot be said that the appellant was coerced to book the consignments. The Tribunal had also recorded specific finding that when the consignments were booked, Rationalization Scheme in force which clearly provided a definite route for transportation of goods. Therefore, despite feasibility of any shorter route, it is incumbent upon the railways to follow the Rationalization Scheme and accept bookings only through permissible routes. As the said scheme came to be formulated in exercise of powers conferred under Section 71 of the Act, it has statutory force. was 16. When there is no challenge to aforesaid Rationalization Scheme, the appellant cannot have any grievance of such claim, which is binding. The appellant had choice of moving the consignments either through railways or any other mode of transport and it is purely commercial business decision of contacting with railway. When the agent or appellant with open eyes contacted the railways and as could be seen from RR, the movement of n 12 mentioned the route through which they are the distance for which the wagons is specifically supposed to be transported and cover freight charges were appiied, after delivering the consignment, it Violation of the contract. be said that there is any breach or In so far as the submission Section 69 of the Act which gave cannot with respect to the applicability of immunity to railways in case of they establish congestion or other the Tribunal has only alternative submission. When show that wagons have moved in deviation of route, subject to operational constraints, the railways as well as pressed into the provision only as an there is no evidence on record to a different route than what was provided for in RR, it is unnecessary which reliance has aforesaid aspect. The judgment on learned counsel for the appellant dealt with a to go into been placed by the where some of the wagons were were routed in shorter the distance as per RR. Considering the facts of that particular case routed as per RRs and some distance though tariff was collected based on case were moved admitted therein that the wagons through shorter distance, the principle enunciated under Section 72 came to be applied. and as it was I i' 13 r' } 17. In the present case, in the absence of any such evidence to indicate that goods were transported in a shorter distance and what exactly was the route and distance covered, though there is no dispute on the preposition laid in the aforesaid judgment, the same cannot be applied here. In view of the same, as the findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on the evidence both oral and documentary let in by the 18. parties contesting the matter, this Court finds the same doesn't suffer from any perversity, hence no interference is called for. 19. Accordingly, these appeals stands dismissed. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY \ JOINT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, at Guntur, (with records) 2. One CC to Sri. Sriman, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Mallampalli Srinivas (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) Advocate [OPUC] 4. The V R Section, Section Officer, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Two CD Copies PR NM ♦ 4 HIGH COURT DATED:24/07/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT CMA NOS. 199 & 2021 OF 2022 o •t:3 7 OCT 2025 crj DISMISSING THE APPEAL’S ntSectiojjX* rSPATC^