MFA 35/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Ms. Devi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Barman, learned counse l for the respondent. This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 (in short, the Act ) by the Union of India represented by the General Manager, NF Railway is directed against the judgment and order dated 5th April, 2007 passed by the l earned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in Application No.206/2001 direct ing the railway to pay an amount of Rs.61,025/- with interest as compensation. A consignment of 555 bags of rice was booked in Ex.AY to NGC under Invoice No.5, RR No.448001 dated 19th March, 1998 by the respondents. There was, however, ne t shortage of 16639 Kgs. at the time of delivery of the consignment, which has b een admitted by the railway by issuing the Delivery Certificate-cum-AD report on 12th December, 1998. According to the respondent, who filed the original Application No.206/2001 befo re the Railway Claims Tribunal, though he is entitled to Rs,1,24,293, the railwa y has paid only Rs.63,268/- vide cheque No.588559 dated 9th January, 2001, state d to be in full and final satisfaction of the claim leaving the balance of Rs.61 ,025/-. The respondent, therefore, claimed the said amount before the learned R ailway Claims Tribunal. The said claim of the respondent was resisted by the app ellant/railway contending that against the claim of the respondent, an amount of Rs.63,268/- has been paid on 9th January, 2001 in full and final satisfaction o f the claim, which cheque was encashed and, therefore, the applicant/respondent cannot claim any further amount. It appears from the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Railway Cl aims Tribunal that after receipt of the cheque dated 9th January, 2001 for Rs.63 ,268/-, the respondent protested and sent a protest letter on 17th January, 2001 , which was received by the appellant/railway on 18th January, 2001. By the sai d protest letter, 10(ten) days time was granted to the railway to pay the balanc e amount. The cheque was encashed after expiry of the said period. This Court in a batch of Miscellaneous First Appeals reported in 2009 (1) GLT 12 4 (Union of India & Ors. -Vs- Jain Enterprise & Ors.) has held that when the rai lway administration issued any cheque with any condition attached thereto, if th e offeree before encashment of the cheque and immediately on receipt of the same , protested such condition, it would not amount to acceptance of the conditions attached to the cheque, by conduct, for retaining and encashing the cheque. It h as also been held that if the cheque is retained and encashed by the offeree wit hout any protest then it would amount to acceptance of the offer made by the rai lway administration by the offeree by conduct. In the instant case, it is evident that immediately after receipt of the cheque alongwith the communication that the said amount is offered towards the full and final satisfaction of the claim, the respondent sent a communication protesting the same and giving the railway administration 10(ten) days time to pay the bal ance amount. The amount under the cheque was enashed only after expiry of the s aid period. Hence, it cannot be said that the respondent has accepted the condi tion attached with the cheque issued by the railway administration. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the appeal and hence the same i s dismissed.