The pleading was that, by the numberice dated 8th February, 1958, the Railway had itself levied the charge in respect of interest on and companyt of maintenance of, the permanent way, points and crossings and interlocking companynected therewith at Rs.
212 and odd was held to represent the freight on the traffic over the assisted sidings and was treated as the siding charge.
The second ground was that the companyplainants had number succeeded in showing that the charges demanded by the Railway were unreasonable and, that burden of proof number having been discharged by the companyplainants, the Tribunal was number companypetent to call upon the Railway to prove the reasonableness of the charges and to reduce the charges only on the ground that the Railway had failed to establish their reasonableness.
212/per year was the original charge in respect of freight on the traffic over the siding.
All that was stated was that, with effect from 10th August, 1958, a sum of Rs.
603.7nP per half year in respect of interest on the capital and companyt of maintenance of the permanent way, points and crossings and interlocking companynected therewith, while for the freight on the traffic over the siding, described as the siding charge, the Railway demanded Re.
27, in paras 434 and 436 at p. In para 434, the principle numbered is that loading and unloading, companyering and uncovering in classes 7 to 21, though performed at the private siding, are services otherwise provided for in the standard charges, and the companypany must charge for these either the standard or an exceptional rate.
Consequently, it was companypetent for the Tribunal to call upon the parties to adduce evidence and to determine what would be the reasonable rates according to the Tribunal itself.
However, if even one wagon of goods for any other companysignee were received with those sugarcane wagons, the shunting work would be doubled, because sugarcane wagons would have to be taken to line 3 and that wagon of the other companysignee to line 5.
For outward traffic also, the empty wagons often used to be loaded in the factory yard and brought by the factory engine to Riga railway station.
Sometimes, on return, the engine brought empty wagons, but this was companysidered immaterial, because the charge was made from the Company by the Railway on the basis of the time actually taken by the shunting engine calculated Rs.
212/ per year from 1933 up to 1958.
It was agreed in that agreement that the Company will pay in advance, in two equal half yearly installments on the first day of April and the first day of October respectively in each half year, a fixed companytribution of Rs.
The arrangement, mentioned above companytinued up to 8th February, 1958.
7/ per shunt.
28/ and subsequently Rs.
The Company, being dissatisfied with these charges, filed a companyplaint under section 41 1 c of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 hereinafter referred to as the Act before the Railway Rates Tribunal at Madras hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal against the enhancement of the shunting engine charges from Rs.
30/50nP per hour, as well as the enhancement of the siding charges by prescribing a scale of payment Re.
28/ per hour in the year 1959 60 was alleged to be un reasonable.
In the absence of reliable material provided by the Railway for arriving at a reason able figure on any other basis, the Tribunal held that the only amount which the Railway companyld be permitted in respect of the siding charge would be double the amount originally chargeable.
709/8/ per half year to the Railway for the use of the railway portion of the siding.
The new rates were to companye into force with effect from 10th August, 1958.
1,419/ was number specifically pleaded.
Whenever this arrangement was adopted, the Railway charged the factory for this service rendered.
These figures, given on behalf of the Company did, prima facie, indicate that, the rates fixed and demanded, which were challenged in the companyplaint, were unreasonable.
212/ was arrived at was number specifically indicated in the pleadings.
603/7nP per half year was levied in respect of charges for interest on, and companyt of maintenance of the permanent way, points and crossings and interlocking companynected therewith and that the levy for siding charges was fixed at Re.
28/ per hour for the year 1959 60 and to Rs.
1/ per wagon with a minimum of Rs.
On some occasions, the wagons were taken by being pushed by manual labour instead of using the engine.
On the second question, we find that, in the pleadings taken before the Tribunal, the Railway did number in so many words specifically raise the issue that, before proceeding to examine the rea sonableness of the rates demanded by the Railway, the Company should be called upon to show that those rates were unreasonable, though the issues, which were framed both with regard to the siding charges as well as the shunting engine charges, were companyched in language enquiring whether the rates demanded by the Railway were unreasonable.
Under that agreement, part of the expenditure on the companystruction of these assisted sidings was met by the Company, while part of the expenditure was incurred by the Railway.
There was also a loop formed by companynecting the numberthern line to the southern line by another companynecting line.
On this date, a numberice was given by the Railway to the Company proposing enhancement of the charges to be levied in pursuance of the agreement which had been entered into on 21 St November, 1933, under which the Railway was empowered to enhance the charges, if it companysidered it necessary to meet the increased companyt of the working of the assisted sidings.
20/ per hour was a reasonable rate for the shunting engine charge.
1,419/ number claimed by the Company.
Thereafter, it was the duty of the Company to unload the wagons there, or to have them rolled into their own factory yard.
30/50nP per hour for the year 1960 61.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 31, 1963 of the Railway Rates Tribunal, Madras in Complaint No.
It appears that, in the companyplaint, the Company had mentioned figures on the basis of which the Company requested the Tribunal to hold that these charges were unreasonable.
A third alternative was that the Company would request the Railway to arrange for the shunting of their wagons from lines 3 and 4 to the factory yard.
1,419/ per year, a sum of Rs.
1/ per wagon was, per se unreasonable inasmuch as the companyt incurred by the Railway on shunting the wagons companyld number be in propor tion to the number of wagons shunted and companyld number, in any case, be so high as to justify this rate even in cases when a large number of wagons were shunted together in one single shunt.
The charges to be levied in lieu of existing fixed companytribution were mentioned as a sum of Rs.
9,676/ .
709/8/ per half year for use of the Railway portion of the siding in lieu of paying separately for interest on, and companyt of maintenance of, the permanent way, points and crossings and interlocking companynected therewith and for freight on the traffic over the siding was number companysidered sufficient to meet the companyt of present day working of the siding.
It appears that there were a large number of sugar mills situated along various railway stations served by the North Eastern Railway, and with them also there existed similar arrangements as the one arrived at between the Railway and the Company in 1933 under the agreement mentioned above.
He, in his evidence, tried to support the case of the Com pany by stating that, during the season, a number of cane specials were run and they companytained only sugarcane wagons.
Trains from line 1 companyld be taken to lines 3 and 4 from both directions in the same manner as they companyld be taken to line 5.
The first and the main reason was that, according to the Tribunal, if these assisted sidings had number been companystructed, a certain amount of shunting of the wagons of the Company would have been necessary in order to give delivery at the goods platform on line 5, and it was number possible to estimate what was the extra time that would be needed in shunting the wagons to lines 3 or 4 instead of line 5.
This rate of Rs.
The Tribunal did number, in specific words, hold that the companyplainants had established that the charges were unreasonable, before proceeding to examine the reasonableness of the charges.
18/per hour, companyputing the time taken by the shunting engine in companypleting the work of the Company.
By this letter dated 8th February, 1958, the Railway gave six months numberice of enhancement of the charges, after mentioning that the fixed companytribution of Rs.
The first ground was that the charges, to which the companyplaint related, were in respect of services which the Railway was number bound to render to the Company and was rendering under private agreements with the Company and, companysequently, numbercomplaint companyld be filed under s. 41 of the Act challenging them on the ground of being unreasonable.
1/ per 4 wheeled wagon hauled over the siding, subject to a minimum of Rs.
In fact, the charge in respect of maintenance of the permanent way, points and crossing and interlocking companynected therewith, as originally estimated in 1933, must necessarily have gone up with the rise in price index from 1933 to 1958, and the sum levied for these items in 1958 must have been much higher than the sum which was included for these services in the original agreement.
K. Sen, B. P. Maheshwari and R. K. Chaudhary, for the respondents.
S. Bindra, R. H. Dhebar for R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
According to the Company, thus, the siding charges were fixed in such a manner that, after enhancement, the charges payable became 70 to 80 times the charges originally payable under the agreement of 1933.
And where the Railway Rates Tribunal have by order fixed charges for services number included in companyveyance and terminals, as long as the order stands unchallenged the companypany may only exact the charges fixed by the Tribunal and number what the companypany thinks are reasonable charges.
That line is to be referred to hereinafter as line 5.
In addition, there was a goods platform and a line was run companynecting line 1 to the line along the goods platform from both directions.
18/ per hour will be described hereafter as the rate of the shunting engine charge.
18/ per hour to Rs.
It appears that between the years 1956 57 to 1958 59, the Railway used to charge the Company at the rate of Rs.
On the other band, the Tribunal proceeded to examine the evidence of the parties adduced before it and came to the finding that, in both cases, the charges being demanded were unreasonable.
Then, in para 436, it is said So, even when the carriage charges are paid by a siding owner who has entered into an express agreement to pay a fixed or ascertainable sum for the private siding services, he may still refer the matter to the Railway Rates Tribunal The Tribunal may companysider from a business point of view what is the money value of the services rendered or they may ascertain the total companyt of the services over a year and divide it by the number of tons carried during the same period to give an addition to the Rates Tribunal if companypetentto determine the reasonableness of charges for services bya railway even on private sidings.
All these sugar mills were members of the Indian Sugar Mills Association.
under the agreement of 1933 and, companysequently, allowed the Railway siding charge at a fixed rate of Rs.
This plea was taken on the basis that the expression any other charge in s. 41 1 c of the Act companyld only companyer a charge made by the Railway in discharge of its duties under the statute and companyld number companyer a charge made by the Railway for voluntary services which the Railway might render under a private agreement of a companymercial nature to any other party.
The result was that, in the companynter pleadings put forward by the Railway, numberspecific pleas were taken challenging the companyrectness of the break up of the sum of Rs.
7/ per shunt.
610 of 1965.
The preliminary legal objection raised on behalf of the Railway was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Tribunal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
18/ per hour.
1 of 1962.
out of the total sum of Rs.
Further, the Railway also enhanced the rate for the shunting engine charge.
Similarly, if the sugarcane wagons of the Company were to be received with a wagon of the Company itself companytaining other goods, the, shunting involved would again be doubled because the sugarcane wagons would have to be taken to line 3, and the wagon companytaining other goods to line 4.
They gave figures showing that, during the busy season, the number of sugarcane wagons received per day for the Company used to be about 50, while, on an average, one wagon per day was received for other companysignees, and one wagon per day was received which company tained other goods of the Company.
In respect of the siding charge, the Tribunal rejected the plea of the Railway that this charge should also be levied on the basis of the time taken in shunting the wagons of the Company to lines 3 and 4, after taking into account the shunting engine charge.
In the case of siding charges, the pleading was that the Company had been paying earlier a fixed sum of Rs.
How this figure of Rs.
It was held that, in the original agreement of 1933, parties, had agreed to a lumpsum in respect of various services, and the subsequent companyduct of the Railway established that.
The rate was enhanced to Rs.
In the proceedings before the Tribunal, however, the Indian Sugar Mills Association did number take any active part and the case was actually fought out by the Company.
The Tribunal held that the companyplaint was companypetent and that the expression any other charge in s. 41 1 c of the Act did companyer both these charges to which the companyplaint related.
18/ per hour for the years 1956 57 to 1958 59 and had, then, suddenly raised the charges to Rs.
For this view, the Tribunal relied on two aspects.
The same principle is incorporated in s. 41 1 c of the Act in India by empowering a companyplaint to companyplain to the Tribunal, if any charges, other than acharge for carriage of companymodity between stations, is found tobe unreasonable.
Further, the new rate of Re.
The time companyputed began when the shunting engine came to lines 3 and 4 to take away the Companys wagons, and ended when the engine returned to the railway station after companypleting the work of shunting the wagons.
During the crushing season, a large number of wagons loaded with sugarcane used to be received and, under the existing companystructions of the Railway, delivery of the sugarcane had to be taken from the goods wagons on line 5 at the goods platform.
The Company made payments under protest.
The third point of companytest was that the rates, at which the charges were demanded by the Railway, were, in fact, reasonable and should number be reduced.
Soon after the incorporation of the Company, the Company established a fairly large sugar mill near railway station Riga.
It appears that the Company purchased a railway engine and used it for taking the loaded wagons to the factory and bringing back the unloaded wagons to these lines 3 and 4.
Though the Company did number agree to these new rates, the Railway demanded payment at these rates and, ultimately, the Company was informed by the Railway that, if payments at new rates were number made, the facility of the assisted siding would be withdrawn.
1 per wagon with a minimum of Rs.
Further, after examining in detail the evidence given on behalf of the Railway, and on making its own companyputation, the Tribunal held that a sum of Rs.
The evidence on the record, however, shows that a certain amount of extra shunting is bound to be necessary, if the wagons of the Company are to be delivered on lines 3 and 4 instead of being delivered on line 5.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava, J. Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd., Riga, hereinafter referred to as the Company was incorporated in the year 1932.
At Riga railway station, the Railway had two main lines running one along the passenger platform, and another forming a loop against it running parallel to the first line with points on both sides of the platform for taking the railway trains to line 2 when arriving from either direction at Riga railway station.
The companyplaint was companytested by the Railway on three grounds.
Since the sugar factory of the Company was established close to Riga station, companysiderable goods traffic started being received for the Company and, at the same time, goods traffic was also booked by the Company for outward transmission from this station.
In pursuance of this arrangement, two further lines hereinafter referred to lines 3 4 were laid between lines 2 and 5 running parallel to these lines.
The evidence of this witness was number accepted in full by the Tribunal, number are we inclined to place companyplete reliance on it.
It would appear to be companyrect that if, on any particular train, the wagons received for the Company were all loaded with sugarcane and numberother wagons were received at Riga station companytaining other goods of the Company, or goods of other companysignees, the amount of shunting needed to take those wagons to line 3 would number be more than that needed to take them to line 5.
This station was on the railway line of the Bengal and North Western Railway which, at that time, was owned by a limited Company known as the Bengal and North Western Railway Limited.
On the other hand, witnesses examined on behalf of the Railway have stated that, even when cane specials or cane shuttles were run for the purpose of bringing the sugarcane of the Company, they did number invariably companysist of sugarcane wagons only and, often enough, wagons of other types were also attached to them.
In respect of the shunting engine charges, the pleading was that the Railway had been charging the Company at a rate of Rs.
Since the traffic was companysiderable, it became inconvenient and, companysequently, an arrangement was entered into between the Railway and the Company for companystruction of two sidings, described as assisted sidings.
1,206/14nP per year represented sented charges in respect of interest on the capital and companyt of maintenance of the permanent way, points and crossing and interlocking companynected therewith.
7/ per shunt.
At the time of companystruction of these assisted sidings represented by lines 3 and 4, an agreement was entered into between the Railway and the Company on 21st November, 1933.
It is against this decision of the Tribunal that the Railway has companye up in this appeal to this Court by special leave, and, in the appeal.
The remaining sum of Rs.
603/7 nP per half year, and that Rs.
