BIRLA CEMENT WORKS versus G.M. WESTERN RAILWAY AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 5 · Decided: 02-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BIRLA CEMENT WORKS 
v. 
G.M. WESTERN RAILWAY AND ANR. 
JANUARY 2, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.j 
Limitation Act, 1963-S. 17( l)(c)--lndian Railways Act, 1890-S.78-B: 
Limitation for claiming refund of over charges or excess payment-Claim for 
refund of over charge or excess payment under section 78-B of Indian Railways 
A 
B 
Act beyond six months would fall within the meaning of Section 78-B of the C 
Act and claim ba"ed by operation of the Proviso of Section 78-B. 17(1)(c) 
of Limitation Act-No application. 
The petitioner is a manufacturer of cement in Rajasthan. Petitioner 
got the cement transported through meter gauge from the railway siding 
at Chandina prior to 3.9.1989. After conversion of meter guage into broad D 
guage additional 34 kilometers distance was added to levy freight charges. 
Thereafter various consignments booked by the appellant and transported 
the cement to diverse destination and paid the freight charges between 
May-June 1989 and March 1990. 
A notice was sent to the Western Railway by the appellant under 
section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 claiming refund of different 
accounts. On its rejection a claim under section 16 of the Act made before 
E 
the Railway Claims Tribunal. The principal contention raised by the 
petitioner was· that it had discovered the mistake when the railway 
authorities have confirmed by their letter dt. 12.10.1990 informing that F 
they have committed mistake in charging excess freight charges on wrong 
calculation of distance. It was therefore claimed that the limitation starts 
running from the date of discovery of mistake and therefore stood excluded 
by operation of Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963 in this case. 
The Railway Tribunal dismissed the petition holding as being barred 
under section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act, 1890. Appeal to Single 
Judge of the High Court was dismissed. On further appeal, the Division 
Bench confirmed the same. Hence this Appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
5 
G 
H 
6 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : 1. The Tribunal is the creature of the Statute. Therefore, it 
B 
is not a Civil Court nor the Limitation Act has application even though it 
may beheld that the petitioner discovered the mistake committed in paying 
'over charges' and the limitation is not saved by operation of Section 
17(l)(c) of the Limitation Act [7-D] 
2. An over charge is also charge which would fall within the meaning 
of Section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act itself but beyond six months, 
by operation of that provision in the section itself, the claim become.s 
barred by limitation. Therefore, the Tribunal and the High Court have 
rightly concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to the refund of the 
C amount claimed. (7-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petitions (C) 
Nos. 21448 of 1994 etc. etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.10.94 .of the Rajasthan High 
D Court in C. Spl. A No. 76 of 1994. 
E 
A.K. Chitale, Praveeen Kumar and Virendra Kaushal for the 
Petitioner. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The petitioner is a manufacturer of cement at Chittorgarh in Rajas-
than. It had transported cement to various destinations through railway 
carriages. Prior to 3.5.1989, the petitioner got the cement transported 
through meter gauge from the railway siding at Chanderia. After conver-
F 
sion into broad gauge ·the railway siding was at Difthkola Chittor Broad 
Gauge Rail Link. In consequence 34 kilometers' distance was added to levy 
freight charges. Thereafter, between May-June, 1989 and March, 1990 the 
petitioner had, various consignments, booked and transported the ¢ement 
to diverse destinations and paid the freight charges. Later, on January 21, 
1991, the petitioner has sent a notice to the Western Railway under Section 
G 78-B of the Indian Railway Act, 1890, (for short, 'the Act'), claiming refund 
of different amounts. Since it was rejected, on 23.12.1991 the petitioner laid 
the claim under s.16 of the Act before the Railway Claims Tribunal at 
Jaipur, which by its Order dated 25.11.1992, dismissed the petition holding 
as being barred under s. 78-B the Act. When it was challenged in Civil 
H Appeal No. 84/93 and batch the Single Judge of the High Court by his 
y 
BIRLA CEMENT WORKS v. WESTERN RL Y. 
7 
~ 
order dated 25.1.1994 dismissed the same. On further appeal No. 76/94, A 
the Division Bench by order dated 3.10.94 confirmed the sam

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.