Civil Appeals Nos
149 to 154 of 1959
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 25 1958 of the former Bombay High Court at Rajkot in Civil Revision Applications Nos 46 4955 57 58 and 59 of 1958
SP Sinha Shahzadi Mohiuddin and ML Khowaja for the appellants
NS Bindra and RN Sachthey for the respondents
October 21 1963
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO J
These six appeals filed by special leave raise a common question namely whether the suits flied against the Western Railway for the refund of amounts collected from the appellant firm as wharfage or demurrage would lie in a Civil Court
Civil Appeals Nos
152 and 153 of 1959 arise out of the suits filed for the recovery of the amounts collected from the appellant firm by way of demurrage and the other appeals are filed for the recovery of amounts collected from the said firm by way of wharfage charges
It would be enough if we gave the particulars of the claim in one of the suits for it was stated at the Bar that the claims for refund were similar in all the other suits
Excepting the plaint in Civil Suit No 109 of 1957 the other plaints are not placed before us
We are therefore proceeding on the assumption that the relevant allegations in all the plaints are similar particularly as the assertion of learned counsel for the appellants to the said effect was not questioned by learned counsel for the respondent
Civil Suit No 109 of 1957 was filed by the appellants in Civil Appeal No 149 of 1959 for recovery of a sum of Rs 295 from the Union of India representing the Western Railway
The appellants are 150 a firm doing business in Surendranagar
The said firm received a consignment of 125 bags of rice booked from Belanganj to Surendranagar railway station
At the time of effecting delivery of the said consignment the Station Master at Surendranagar recovered a sum of Rs 275 7 O from the appellant firm as wharfage charges
It is alleged in the plaint that the railway notifications and rules under which the railway had charged the wharfage at two annas to four annas per maund per day were illegal and ultra vires and that in any view the railway had no power under the rules to collect charges from the appellantfirm under the said rules for the free time under the head of wharfage charges
On those allegations the suit was filed for the refund of the amount collected by the said railway
The defendant denied either that the rules were ultra vires or that it collected the amount contrary to the rules
It pleaded that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit
Similar suits were filed in respect of other amounts and similar contentions were raised
The learned Civil Judge dismissed all the suits on the ground that they were barred under section 26 of the Indian Railways Act 1890 Act IX of 1890 hereinafter called the Act
The said firm in all the suits preferred revisions against the judgment of the Civil Judge to the High Court of Bombay at Rajkot
The High Court agreed with the view of the Civil Judge and dismissed the revisions
Hence the appeals
The only question raised before us is whether section 26 of the Act is a bar against the maintainability of the said suits in a civil court for refund of the said amounts collected from the appellant firm by way of wharfage and demurrage charges
To appreciate the contentions of the parties it is necessary to notice the relevant sections of the Act
At the outset it may be mentioned that in the present appeals the amounts were collected between the years 1953 and 1955 and therefore we will be ignoring the later amendments made in the Act for the purpose of the present enquiry
151 Section 314 terminals includes charges in respect of stations sidings wharves depots warehouses cranes and other similar matters and of any services rendered thereat
 Section 26
Except as provided in this Act no suit shall be instituted or proceeding taken for anything done or any omission made by a railway administration in violation or contravention of any provision of this Chapter Ch V
 Section 32 The Central Government may by general or special order fix the rates of terminal and other charges for the whole or any part of a railway and prescribe the conditions in which such rates will apply
Section 34
1 There shall be a Tribunal called the Railway Rates Tribunal for the purpose of discharging the functions hereinafter specified in this Chapter
Section 41
i Any complaint that a railway administration c is levying charges other than standardised terminal charges which are unreasonable may be made to the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall bear and decide any such complaint in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter
Section 45
Nothing in this Chapter shall confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal in respect of scales of charges levied by a railway administration for the carriage of passengers and their luggage parcels military traffic and traffic in railway materials and stores and demurrage charges except on a reference made to the Tribunal by the Central Government
Section 46A
The decision of the Tribunal shall be by a majority of the members sitting and shall be final
152 Provided that where a single member of the Tribunal has heard and decided any matter he may in his discretion give leave to any party to appeal to the Full Bench and if an appeal is filed in pursuance of such leave the decision of the Full Bench or of a majority of the members thereof as the case may be shall be final
Section 46B
The Tribunal may transmit any order made by it to a Civil Court having local jurisdiction and such Civil Court shall execute the order as if it were a decree
Section 46C
In this Chapter unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context d demurrage means the charge levied after the expiry of the free time allowed for loading or unloading a wagon
The scheme of the said provisions is clear
The Central Government fixes the rates of terminal and other charges for the whole or a part of a railway
If a railway administration levies charges other than the standardised terminal charges which are unreasonable an aggrieved party may file a complaint against the administration before the Railway Rates Tribunal
The decision of the Tribunal is final
In regard to demurrage charges mentioned in section 45 of the Act the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim in respect thereof except by a reference made to the Tribunal by the Central Government
Section 26 bars the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts to entertain a suit or a proceeding for anything done or any omission made by the railway administration in violation or contravention of any of the provisions of Chapter V
In regard to such violation an aggrieved party can only proceed in the manner provided by the Act
The short question therefore is whether the said claims for refund are covered by the bar imposed by section 26 of the act
As section 26 bars the jurisdiction of civil courts its provisions must be strictly construed
The bar is in respect of anything done or an omission 153 made by the railway administration in violation or contravention of any provisions of Chapter V of the Act
If the opening words Except as provided in this Act in section 26 of the Act are ignored the bar appears to be comprehensive for it may take in its sweep any dereliction of duty by the railway administration in respect of matters covered by the provisions of the said chapter
But such an intention to give a blanket licence to the railway administration to contravene the provisions of Chapter V of the Act shall not be attributed to the Legislature unless the section is very clear to that effect
The opening words Except as provided in this Act limit the operation of the bar
It can reasonably be interpreted to mean that the bar of a suit is limited to matters in respect whereof the Act has provided a remedy
So construed before we apply the provisions of section 26 of the Act two conditions shall be complied with namely i the railway administration shall have done an act or omitted to do an act in contravention of the provisions of Ch
V and ii the Act has provided a remedy in respect of that act or omission
It was argued that the charges levied by the railway administration under the heads of wharfage and demurrage are terminals in regard whereof rules were framed by the Government under section 32 of the Act that the complaint of the appellants was that the rates were collected in excess of those prescribed under the rules and that therefore section 26 bars a suit for recovery of the same
The first question therefore is whether wharfage and demurrage charges are terminals
Terminals has been defined by section 314 of the Act to include charges in respect of stations sidings wharves depots warehouses cranes and other similar matters and of any services rendered thereat
Under s32 of the Act the Central Government may by general or special order fix the rates of terminal and other charges for the whole or any part of a railway and prescribe the conditions in which such rates will apply
In order to find out whether wharfage and 154 demurrage charges come under the definition of terminals it is necessary to ascertain the meaning of the words wharfage and demurrage as understood by the Act and the rules made thereunder
There is no definition of wharfage
in the Act
But section 46Cd defines demurrage to mean the charge levied after the expiry of the free time allowed for loading or unloading a wagon
But the rules presumably made under the Act give a clear idea of the meaning of these words
The relevant rule is r 85 and it reads The actual wharfage and demurrage rules locally in force on different railways are published in each Railway s Tariffs and may be ascertained on application at stations
The following wharfage and demurrage rules were in force on the BB  CI Railway which is now named as the Western Railway
Clauses A and B thereof give the rates of wharfage and demurrage and clause C defines demurrage and wharfage
Clause C reads i When wagons required to be unloaded by consignees are not unloaded within the free time of six day tight hours after being placed in position for unloading demurrage as per clause B ii above will be charged for such time above six daylight hours as the goods remain in the wagon and wharfage at the rate notified as applicable at the station will be charged if the goods are not removed from the railway premises by the end of the day following that on which they are unloaded ii When wagons requiring to be unloaded by consignees are unloaded within the free time of six daylight hours after being placed in position for unloading wharfage at the rate notified as applicable at the station will be charged if the goods are not removed from the railway premises by 155 the end of the day following that on which the free time of six daylight hours expires
Demurrage is therefore a charge levied on the goods not unloaded from the wagons within the free time of six daylight hours and wharfage is the charge levied on goods not removed from the railway premises after the expiry of the free time allowed for that purpose Indeed section 46Cd of the Act which was inserted by Act 65 of 1945 has practically adopted the definition of the word demurrage given in the said rule
Wharfage and demurrage are therefore charges levied in respect of goods retained in the wagons or in the railway premises beyond the free time allowed for clearance under the rules
The question is whether such charges are terminals as defined in the Act
The expression terminal charges was defined for the first time in the Indian Railways Act 1890
It was taken from the definition in section 55 of the English Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1888
Terminal charges are of two categories 1 charges for services and 2 charges for accommodation and appliances which facilitate business
The service terminals comprise of remuneration for the handling of goods at the terminal station ie where the railway employees are engaged in weighing loading unloading etc
As distinguished from this service terminals there are station terminals which are charges for providing accommodation incidental to the business of a carrier such as working charges repairs renewals insurance of station buildings sidings sheds platforms warehouses cranes hydraulic power fixed appliances etc
 Both demurrage and wharfage would fall within the head of station terminals because they are charges levied for the use either of the wagon or of the platform or goods shed after the transit or conveyance is complete and is not incidental to the conveyance as such
Charges levied in respect of stations are included in the definition of terminals under the Act
As the wharfage and demurrage are charges in respect of goods unloaded from wagons and kept at the 156 station and also in respect of goods kept on platforms of the station the said charges could certainly be described as charges in respect of the station
If so it follows that the said charges are terminals within the meaning of the definition of the said expression in the Act
Let us now see whether any remedy is provided by the Act for an aggrieved party to ask for a refund of the charges collected on the ground mentioned in the plaint
The Tribunal constituted under section 34 of the Act has jurisdiction to decide whether the charges levied by the railway administration other than the standardised terminal charges were unreasonable
The Act does not provide for any remedy for an aggrieved party to approach the Tribunal for a refund of the amount collected by the railway administration by way of wharf age or demurrage on the ground that the rules empowering the said administration to do so are ultra vires or that the amounts so collected are in excess of wharfage or demurrage leviable under the rules
If the impugned charges are standardised terminal charges the dispute in regard thereto fails outside section 41 of the Act
If they are charges other than the standardised terminal charges the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined only to the question of its reasonableness
It has no jurisdiction to decide whether the rules empowering the railway administration to levy a particular charge are ultra vires or whether the railway administration collected amounts in excess of the charges which it can legally levy under a rule
If so it is clear that no provision has been made under the Act giving a remedy to an aggrieved party to ask for a refund of amounts such as those alleged to have been collected from the appellants
Section 26 therefore cannot be a bar against the maintainability of the suits filed by the appellants
We do not propose to express our view in this case as it has not been argued before us whether the demurrage charges in question fell within the meaning of the expression demurrage charges in 157 section 45 of the Act and if so whether the jurisdiction of the Tribunal could only be invoked in the manner prescribed thereunder
For the foregoing reasons we hold that both the High Court and the trial Court went wrong in dismissing the suits on the ground that section 26 of the Act was a bar against their maintainability
We therefore set aside the judgment of the High Court as well as that of the trial Court and remand the suits to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law
We should not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the other questions raised in the suits
The respondent will pay the costs of the appellants here
The costs of the courts below will abide the result
Suits remanded


Summary:
Suits were filed against the Union of India representing the Western Railway for the refund of amounts collected by the Western Railway as wharfage and demurrage charges from the appellants
It was alleged in the plaint that Railway notifications and rules under which the Railway had charged the wharfage at two annas to four annas per maund per day were illegal and ultra rites and that in any view the railway had no power under the rules to collect charges from appellant firm for the free time under the head of wharfage charges
The respondent pleaded that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits and that rules were not ultra rites and money was not collected against the rules
Suits were dismissed by the trial court on the ground that they were barred under section 26 of the Indian Railways Act
Revisions were also dismissed by the High Court
The appellants came to this Court by Special Leave
Accepting the appeals Held that section 26 of the Indian Railways Act is not a bar to the maintainability of a suit for the refund of what fage or demurrage charged in excess
The bar under section 26 is not comprehensive
It is limited by the opening words Except as provided in the Act in the section
Two conditions must be complied with before applying section 26
The railway administration should have done an act or omitted to do an act in contravention of the provisions of Chapter V of the Indian Railways Act and the Act should provide a remedy in respect of that act or omission
In the present case the Act does not provide for any remedy for an aggrieved party to approach the Tribunal appointed under section 34 of the Act for the refund of the amount collected in excess by the Railway Administration by way of wharfage or demurrage
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide whether the rules empowering the administration to collect wharfage or demurrage charges are ultra vires or the amounts collected are in excess of what is leviable under the rules
Wharfage and demurrage are charges in respect of goods unloaded from wagons and kept at the station and also in respect of the goods kept on a platform of the station beyond the free time allowed for clearance under the rules
The said charges 149 can certainly be described as charges in respect of the station and are terminals within the meaning of the definition of the term in the Act