Railway cannot levy punitive charges for overloading without producing scientific evidence of weighment to rebut consignor’s documentation.

Respondent No. 1 booked a consignment of 3,760 quintals of rice from Tilda to New Guwahati

The Appellant (Railways) imposed penal undercharges of ₹31,733 and demurrage charges of ₹20,475, alleging excess weight

Respondent No. 1 filed an application for a refund before the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT), Guwahati Bench

The Appellant failed to produce any evidence of overloading, such as a weighment chart, before the RCT despite a discovery application filed by the Respondent

The RCT allowed the claim, directing a refund with 9% interest

The Union of India appealed this decision under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987

1. Whether the Railways can impose punitive charges for overloading under Section 73 of the Railways Act without providing a weighment chart or a basis for such allegations

2. Whether the burden of proof regarding the weight of the consignment was discharged by the consignor in view of Section 110 and the proviso to Section 65(2) of the Railways Act, 1989

The Court applied Section 73 of the Railways Act, 1989, which permits the levy of punitive charges for overloading, and Section 110, which places the burden of proving the correctness of declared weight on the consignor when the weight is not checked by a railway servant

The Court referred to Union of India v. Megha Technical & Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. (SLP (c) No. 8024/2018), which held that a mini-trial is not required at the time of offloading, but scientific methods of proof are necessary

It also considered Jagjit Cotton Textile Mills v. Chief Commercial Superintendent N.R. (1998) 5 SCC 126, affirming the validity of Section 73 while maintaining the consignee's right to know the basis of the penalty

The Court found that while Megha Technical removed the necessity for a full hearing at the point of offloading, it did not eliminate the requirement for the Railways to provide a factual basis for penalties during adjudication

In this case, the Respondent (consignor) discharged their initial burden under Section 110 by producing sale invoices and money receipts consistent with the weight declared in the Railway Receipt

Conversely, the Appellant failed to produce the weighment chart or any documentation before the RCT to substantiate the claim of overloading

Although the Appellant's counsel presented a photocopy of a weighment chart during the appeal, the Court noted this was never furnished to the Respondent or the RCT, rendering the imposition of punitive charges arbitrary and without a record-based foundation

The appeal was dismissed, and the RCT's order directing the refund of undercharges and demurrage with 9% interest was upheld

The records were ordered to be returned to the RCT