Case: Raichand Amulakh Shah Vs. Union Of India

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 S. 46C(d) 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 those 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 Railways Tarrifs and may be ascertained on application at stations."The following wharfage and demurrage rules were in force on the B. B. and C. I. 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" wharfage", Clause (C) reads :(i) When wagons required to be unloaded by consignees are not unloaded within the free time of six daylight 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 with 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 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. In deed S. 46C(d) 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.8. 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 Railway Act 1890. It was taken from the definition in S. 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 i.e., 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 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.9. 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 S. 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 wharfage 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 standarised terminal charges, the dispute in regard thereto falls outside S. 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.10. 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 S. 45 of the Act and, if so, whether the jurisdiction of the Tribunal could only be invoked in the manner prescribed thereunder.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]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 S. 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 theis 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. In deed S. 46C(d) 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 theexpression "terminal charges" was defined for the first time in the Indian Railway Act 1890. It was taken from the definition in S. 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 i.e., 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 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 theAct 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 wharfage 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 standarised terminal charges, the dispute in regard thereto falls outside S. 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.10. 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 S. 45 of the Act and, if so, whether the jurisdiction of the Tribunal could only be invoked in the manner prescribed thereunder.