A single Railway Claims Tribunal member cannot exercise jurisdiction without Chairman’s authorization under Section 4(4).

M/s Ankur Business (P) Ltd. booked consignments of refined salt from Chirai Station under Railway Receipts Nos. 220466 and 220468 dated 12 July 2005 for delivery at New Guwahati.

The Railways alleged that the consignments were overloaded, detected the excess weight during en-route weighment at Viramgram Station, and collected undercharges of ₹38,939; the claimant sought refund of the excess freight/punitive charges.

The Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, registered the claim as Original Application No. 88/2006 and decided it along with 45 other applications by a common judgment, directing the Railways to refund the amount claimed.

The Union of India challenged that decision under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, contending, inter alia, that the matters had been improperly clubbed and that the judgment had been rendered by a single Member without authorization under Section 4(4).

Section 4(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 requires an ordinary Bench to consist of one Judicial Member and one Technical Member.

Section 4(4) creates an exception permitting a single Member to function as a Bench only where the Chairman, or a Member authorized by the Chairman, has been empowered by a general or special order to exercise jurisdiction over specified classes of cases or matters.

Rule 24 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 permits simultaneous hearing of applications only where they arise out of the same facts and involve a common issue; the evidence on common issues must also be properly recorded and certified for the connected matters.

The Court held that similarity of facts or the presence of a common legal question is insufficient where the applications arise from distinct consignments and independent causes of action.

The Court also treated compliance with the statutory composition and procedural requirements as jurisdictional, not discretionary.

The impugned judgment had been delivered by a Judicial Member sitting singly, but the record did not contain any authorization or general/special order of the Chairman under Section 4(4) permitting that Member to exercise the Tribunal’s jurisdiction singly.

The fact that the Member was judicial in character did not dispense with the statutory requirement, since Section 4(4) contains no exemption for Judicial Members.

The Court further found that the 46 applications involved different consignors and consignees, quantities and qualities of goods, originating and destination stations, amounts claimed, and punitive charges.

These were not applications arising out of the “same facts” within Rule 24; they merely involved a broadly similar allegation of overloading.

Consequently, the Tribunal could not lawfully dispose of them through a common judgment in the manner adopted.

Because the decision was vitiated by both the unauthorized single-member constitution and improper clubbing of distinct claims, the High Court considered it unnecessary to adjudicate the underlying questions concerning the alleged overloading, notice, weighment, or refund on merits.

It held that the single Judicial Member lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter without authorization under Section 4(4) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, and that the Tribunal had wrongly clubbed Original Application No. 88/2006 with 45 applications that did not arise from the same facts as required by Rule 24 of the 1989 Rules.

The impugned judgment was therefore set aside to the extent challenged, and Original Application No. 88/2006 was remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, for fresh adjudication after giving both parties a fresh opportunity of hearing.