Indian Oil Corp Ltd. & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

AD-06 Ct No.16 02.01.2025 TN

FMAT 1290 of 2016

Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Union of India Mr. Kanishk Kejriwal, Mr. Amit Meharia, Ms. Paramita Banerjee, Ms. Subika Paul, Mr. Rohan Raj ….for the appellant Mr. Atarup Banerjee, Mr. Amal Kumar Dutta ….for the respondent (Railways)

¶4

….for the appellant

¶5

The present challenge has been preferred against an order dated March 17, 2016 passed by the Kolkata Bench of the Railway Claims Tribunal on a claim for compensation made by the present appellant under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

¶6

Learned counsel for the appellant argues that in terms of the Circular dated January 13, 2000 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board), a prior notice was to be given to the appellant/consignor before the respondent making adjustment for non-delivered/decanted wagons which were part of the consignment. It is argued that by the concerned consignment, several wagons of High Speed Diesel (HSD) were sent by the appellantIOCL. Out of those, admittedly 11 wagons were decanted and utilized by the respondent-railway.

¶7

2

¶8

Although the respondent otherwise is entitled to do so, the amount of shortfall for decantation of such wagons is to be adjusted by supplying equivalent amount of unconnected tank wagons.

¶9

It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that in the present case, no prior notice of adjustment was given to the appellant, which vitiates the entire process of adjustment.

¶10

This aspect of the matter, it is contended, was overlooked by the Tribunal.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the respondentRailways submits that this issue was never raised before the Tribunal.

¶12

The concerned Circular dated January 13, 2000, bearing no. 2000/TC-III/18/IOC, provides that the outstanding dues of oil companies may be adjusted with the amount of their sanctioned claims only after giving the oil companies two notices which include the final notice. This, according to the Circular dated January 13, 2000, was mentioned in the Board’s letter No. 93/TC/III/56/5 dated June 06, 1994.

¶13

However, on a perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal, we do not find that non-service of such prior notice was raised as an objection by the appellant before the Tribunal, nor was any issue framed on the said question.

¶14

3

¶15

Even from the claim for compensation made by the appellant on March 26, 2007 as well as the other documents which are on record, including a letter dated April 23, 2007 issued by the appellant-IOCL and relied on by the appellant, we do not find that the objection as to non-service of such prior notice was raised.

¶16

It was merely mentioned by the appellant in its letter dated April 23, 2007 that while the process of reconciliation of unconnected receipt was on at that juncture, the decision of the Chief Claims Officer of the Railways for adjustment of intercepted tws with reported unconnected receipt at Rourkela in the year 1994 was “not convincing”.

¶17

Thus, no specific objection on the said issue of nonservice of prior notice in terms of the Circular dated January 13, 2000 having at all been raised by the appellant before the Tribunal or before the Railway authorities, the appellant cannot be permitted for the first time to raise such factual issue before the Appellate Court.

¶18

As to the other aspect of the matter, the appellant took a point before the Railway Tribunal to the effect that out of the total 440 number of tank wagons calculated on a Pan-India basis, appearing as unconnected tank wagons in the Railway Claims Section, on reconciliation till now it has come down

¶19

4

¶20

to 217. Insofar as the Pan-India reconciliation is concerned, the present matter does not pertain to the same. The present claim arose out of a claim for compensation by the appellant only with regard to the Rourkela consignment and, as such, the PanIndia scenario on adjustment is a non-issue before us.

¶21

Thus, in view of the issue now being sought to be raised before us having not been raised before the Tribunal and the appellant having not adduced any evidence to prove that the amount of adjustment was not commensurate with the decanted wagons, which were admittedly eleven in number, we are unable to find fault with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal took one of the plausible views on the materials and arguments before it and, as such, it is well-settled that the Appellate Court ought not to substitute its own views merely because another view might be possible on the facts and circumstances of the case. Applying the legal yardstick of preponderance of probabilities, we find that the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal was justified.

¶22