Case: S. S. Light Railway Co., Ltd Vs. Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd. &amp; Another

of this generality of language should be cut down for any reason.It is well-settled that a limited interpretation has to be made on words used by the legislature in spite of the generality of the language used where the literal interpretation in the general sense would be so unreasonable or absurd that the legislature should be presumed not to have intended the same.Is there any such reason for cutting down the result of the generality of the language used present here? The answer, in our opinion, must be in the negative. It is true that in many cases stations, sidings, wharves, depots, warehouses, cranes and other similar things will be used and it is arguable that in using the words "in respect of" the legislature had such user in mind. It is well to notice however that the legislature must have been equally aware that whereas in some cases accommodation provided by stations will be used, in some cases sidings will be used, in others wharves, in others warehouses and in other cases cranes, and in certain cases several of these may be used, in most cases there will be no use of all of these. From the practical point of view it is impossible to regulate terminal charges separately in respect of user of each of these several things mentioned. When therefore the legislature authorised the Central Government to fix terminals as defined in S. 3 (14), the intention must have been that the terminals leviable would not depend on how many of these things would be used. It is also worth noticing that the user of a depot, warehouse and cranes would necessarily mean some service rendered "thereat". If terminals did not include charges in respect of the provisions of depots, warehouses and cranes unless these were used, there would be no need of including these in the first portion as they would be covered by the second part of the definition, viz., "of any services rendered thereat". Far from being there any reason to cut down, the consequence of the generality of language used viz., "in respect of, there is thus good ground for thinking that the legislature used this language deliberately to cut across the difficulty of distinguishing in a particular case as to which of these things had been used or whether any of them had been used at all. Innumerable people carry goods over the Railways and many of them, for the purpose of the carriage make use of the stations, sidings, wharves, depots, warehouses, cranes and other similar matters, while many do not. Though at first sight it might seem unreasonable that those who had not used would have to pay the same charge as those who had made use of these, it is obvious that the interminable disputes that would arise between the Railway Administration and the Railway users, if the fact of user of stations, sidings and other things mentioned had to determine the amount payable, would be unhelpful not only to the Railway Administration but also to the using public. The sensible way was therefore to make a charge leviable for the mere provision of these things irrespective of whether any use was made thereof. That was the reason why such wide words "in respect of" was used. We are therefore of opinion that the words "in respect of" used in S. 3 (14) mean "for the provision of" and not "for the user of". 20. It is worth considering in this connection that the definition of "terminal charges" in the Indian Act is a verbatim reproduction of the definition appearing in the English Railway and Canals Traffic Act,, 1888 and that only three years before the English Parliament passed that Act an English Court had held in Hall and Co. v. London, Brighton and South Coast Rly., Co., (1885) 15 QBD 505, that for the purposes of interpretation of section 51 of the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Act, 1863 which did not include such a definition of terminal charges, the words "any service incidental to the duty or business of a carrier", does comprise providing such station accommodation and such sidings, and such weighing, checkage and labeling as is incidental to the duty which they undertake, of collecting and dealing with the goods as carriers". It is reasonable to think that the English Parliament in defining "terminal charges" in the Railway and Canals Act, 1889 intended to give effect to this view that provision of station accommodation and sidings entitled the Railway Administration to levy "terminal charges." When the Indian Legislature adopted the same definition in its own Act it is proper to think that it also was aware of the view taken in Halls Case, (1885) 15 QBD 505. This consideration fortifies the conclusion which we have already reached on an examination of the scheme of our own Act, apart from authorities, that the words "in respect of" used in S. 3 (!4) in the definition of "terminal charges" mean "for the provision of" and not "for the user of". 21. The necessary conclusion that follows is that irrespective of the fact of the actual user by any particular consignor of the stations, sidings and other things mentioned in S. 3 (14) "terminal charges" are leviable by reason of the mere fact that these things have been provided by the Railway Administration. The conclusion that necessarily follows therefrom is that the charges of Rs. 4.11 at either end sought to be levied by the Railway Administration in addition to the charges for carriage was "terminal charges" within the meaning of the Railway Act and the proposed levy being in accordance with Government Notification under S. 32 of the Act was nothing more than the application of standardized terminal charges. The Tribunal had therefore no jurisdiction to investigate the reasonableness or otherwise of the same and had no jurisdiction to reduce the same.The order made by the majority of the Tribunal cannot therefore be allowed to stand.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]7. In our opinion, the Tribunal (by which we mean the majority of the Tribunal) was wrong in thinking that this was not a case of standardized terminal charges. The first argument which seems to have found favour with the majority and which was repeated here on behalf of the respondent was that while the Government Notification fixed a terminal charge of 6 pies per maund at each end, where loading and unloading is done by the owner, as in the present case, the Railway Company fixed Rs. 9.6 per 4 wheeler as the terminal charge for the two ends together irrespective of the maundage carried. It is obvious that the charge of Rs. 9.6 is equivalent to charge of one anna, the total of 6 pies at each end, per maund on 150 mds. It is urged that it may very well happen that some trucks will carry more than 150 mds. and some less. The fixation of such a lump sum of Rs. 9.6 is, it is contended, not an application of the charges fixed by the Government, but quite a distinct arrangement. In our opinion there is no substance in this contention. It does not appear to be disputed that on an average 200 mds. are carried in each 4 wheeler truck. Exhibit A-6 shows a number of bills for charges for the period February, 1953 to February 10, 1953, for sugarcane carried from these stations to Shamli. The number of trucks for each consignment is mentioned as also the weight carried. In each case we find 200 mds. mentioned as the weight. It is obvious and indeed undisputed that this statement of 200 mds. as the weight is not made on actual weighment but is mentioned on the weight carried on the basis of capacity. As regards the rate for carriage, it is common ground that charge is made per truck and not according to maundage. It also appears to be common ground that this charge is actually calculated on the basis of 150 mds. per truck. We are unable to agree that when the Central Government fixed the charge at so much per maund it was intended that before any such charge could be levied the actual weight should be ascertained by actual weighment. There is nothing to prevent the Railway Company and the consignor from entering into an agreement as to what should be accepted as weight without actual weighment. Once such a fixation is agreed upon the amount calculated on that figure at the rate fixed by Government must be deemed to be the amount properly payable in accordance with the rate fixed by Government. The fact that in some cases less than 150 mds. may be carried in a truck and in other cases more than 150 mds. may be carried does not affect the position that the party who is to pay and the party who is entitled to payment have accepted a particular figure as the weight carried, without actual weighment. When therefore Rs. 9.6 is sought to be levied as the terminal charge being equivalent to 6 pice per maund on 150 mds at each end, it is really an application of the charge fixed by the Central Government8. Nor are we impressed with the argument that the words used in the Local Rate Advice of August 1, 1953, which has been set out above show that a standardized terminal charge was not being levied but some other rate is sought to be levied. It is no doubt true that this Advice quotes "station to station rate"-the amount being then mentioned in two parts, one obviously the rate for carriage, and the second the terminal charge. In fact the words "plus terminal charge" are actually mentioned. The Railway Act has made a clear distinction between the rate and terminal charge. The word "rate" is defined in S. 3 (13) as including "any fare, charge or other payment for the carriage of any passenger, animals or goods; the word "terminals" is defined in clause 14 of the same section as including "charges in respect of stations, sidings, wharves, depots, warehouses, cranes and other similar matters, and of any services, rendered thereat." The word "station to station rate" is defined in S. 46C (g) as meaning "a special reduced rate applicable to a specific commodity booked between two specified stations". The same section also defines "class rate" and "schedule rate". The first being defined as "rate fixed according to the class given to a commodity in the classification of goods" and the second as "the rate lower than the maximum or class rate applied on a commodity basis." We can see no reason for not interpreting the word "rate" used in this section, (46C), as being "any fare charges or other payment for the carriage of any passenger, animals or goods" as defined in S. 3(13). Thus interpreted "station to station rate" in respect of goods will mean only a charge payable for carriage of goods as may be made specially applicable to a specific commodity booked between two specified stations for the carriage of the same. This would not include any charge made in addition to the charge for carriage. It must therefore be held that the words of the Local Advice Order stating the new station to station rate as so much plus "so much for terminal charge" are not strictly accurate. The proper way of giving information to parties concerned would be to state the station to station rate as consisting of the amount mentioned in the first part only-the charge for carriage-and to make a separate announcement as regards terminal charge. This inaccuracy in expression cannot however affect the substance of the matter. The fact that the terminal charge was mentioned as a part of the station to station rate is no reason to think that standardized terminal charges were not being applied14. It is clear therefore that even on the assumption made that on the definition of the terminals in S. 3 (14) no charges are payable unless certain services in addition to carriage are performed by the Railway Company, terminals were leviable in the present case at the Shamli end also and so the foundation for the argument that Rs. 4.11 being charged at the Shamli end was not really a terminal charge but some other charge in the garb of terminal disappearsIt is well-settled that a limited interpretation has to be made on words used by the legislature in spite of the generality of the language used where the literal interpretation in the general sense would be so unreasonable or absurd that the legislature should be presumed not to have intended the same.Is there any such reason for cutting down the result of the generality of the language used present here? The answer, in our opinion, must be in the negative. It is true that in many cases stations, sidings, wharves, depots, warehouses, cranes and other similar things will be used and it is arguable that in using the words "in respect of" the legislature had such user in mind. It is well to notice however that the legislature must have been equally aware that whereas in some cases accommodation provided by stations will be used, in some cases sidings will be used, in others wharves, in others warehouses and in other cases cranes, and in certain cases several of these may be used, in most cases there will be no use of all of these. From the practical point of view it is impossible to regulate terminal charges separately in respect of user of each of these several things mentioned. When therefore the legislature authorised the Central Government to fix terminals as defined in S. 3 (14), the intention must have been that the terminals leviable would not depend on how many of these things would be used. It is also worth noticing that the user of a depot, warehouse and cranes would necessarily mean some service rendered "thereat". If terminals did not include charges in respect of the provisions of depots, warehouses and cranes unless these were used, there would be no need of including these in the first portion as they would be covered by the second part of the definition, viz., "of any services rendered thereat". Far from being there any reason to cut down, the consequence of the generality of language used viz., "in respect of, there is thus good ground for thinking that the legislature used this language deliberately to cut across the difficulty of distinguishing in a particular case as to which of these things had been used or whether any of them had been used at all. Innumerable people carry goods over the Railways and many of them, for the purpose of the carriage make use of the stations, sidings, wharves, depots, warehouses, cranes and other similar matters, while many do not. Though at first sight it might seem unreasonable that those who had not used would have to pay the same charge as those who had made use of these, it is obvious that the interminable disputes that would arise between the Railway Administration and the Railway users, if the fact of user of stations, sidings and other things mentioned had to determine the amount payable, would be unhelpful not only to the Railway Administration but also to the using public. The sensible way was therefore to make a charge leviable for the mere provision of these things irrespective of whether any use was made thereof. That was the reason why such wide words "in respect of" was used. We are therefore of opinion that the words "in respect of" used in S. 3 (14) mean "for the provision of" and not "for the user of"21. The necessary conclusion that follows is that irrespective of the fact of the actual user by any particular consignor of the stations, sidings and other things mentioned in S. 3 (14) "terminal charges" are leviable by reason of the mere fact that these things have been provided by the Railway Administration. The conclusion that necessarily follows therefrom is that the charges of Rs. 4.11 at either end sought to be levied by the Railway Administration in addition to the charges for carriage was "terminal charges" within the meaning of the Railway Act and the proposed levy being in accordance with Government Notification under S. 32 of the Act was nothing more than the application of standardized terminal charges. The Tribunal had therefore no jurisdiction to investigate the reasonableness or otherwise of the same and had no jurisdiction to reduce the same.The order made by the majority of the Tribunal cannot therefore be allowed to stand.