Case: Raichand Amulakh Shah Vs. Union Of India

2. 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.3. 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 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. 275-7-0 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 appellant-firm under the said rules for the "free time" under the head of wharfage charges. On those allegations 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 S. 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.

Court's reasoning:
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.