Case Argument
Date : 21/9/2017
Statement showing cases in which both Claimants & Railways have filed Arguments

NOTE:-Merely posting of JIDRP website with case arguments does not mean that the case has been referred to JIDRP for conciliation. For referring a case to JIDRP for conciliation, the first and foremost condition to be observed, in accordance with Para 3.11 of JIDRP Scheme, is that for existing cases, the concerned PSUs and Railways will move a joint application before the relevant courts, inter-allia, praying for adjournment of the cases till such time the cases are heard and settled by JIDRP.

S No. Case No. Claims No. Claimant Name Amount Claimed Railway Court Code Claimant Argument Claimant Argument Date Railway Argument Railway Argument Date Joint
Application
moved
before
RCT/Court
Joint
Application
accepted
by RCT/Court
Note
filed
in JIDRP
Secretariat
Note
received
by JIDRP
Secretariat
 1  OC/380/2001  2020100415 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  594049  ER  Case Settled by RCT BHOPAL on 13-OCT-15 in favour of Party  TW NOS. CR-102535, CR-102496, ER-35069, WR-41472, WR-44747, CR-101994, CR-101838, WR-44109, SC-49214, SC-1812 LOADED VIDE RR NO.230255 DT.31.12.98 , REPORTED SEALS IN BROKEN CONDITION ON ARRIVAL AT SHAKTINAGAR. OPEN DELIVERY OF THESE TANKWAGONS OBTAINED AND OBSERVED SHORTAGE AS 9526 LTRS, 5127 LTRS, 3443 LTRS, 3774 LTRS, 9823 LTRS, 6192 LTRS, 7543 LTRS, 4533 LTRS, 8892 LTRS , 8103 LTRS. TOTAL SHORTAGE RECORDED WAS 66956 LTRS. CLAIM PREFERRED WITH E.RLY VIDE LETTER REF.NO.SD/ER/L/5-A/99-2000 DT.21.05.99.E.RLY ACKNOWLEDGED THE CLAIM VIDE LETTER REF. NO. F3/ER/10666/6/99/R03 DT.17.06.1999. REMINDERS SENT BY IOC ON 29.09.99. E.RLY REPUDIATED CLAIM VIDE LETTER DATED 17.8.2000, CITING THE REASON NO.9, WHICH IS NOT CLEAR. THEN SUIT WAS FILED IN RCT, BHOPAL IN 2001.  02/Dec/2010  SUBJUDICE.NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD.RCT  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 2  OC/246/2000  2020100758 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  266840  ER  Case Settled by RCT BHOPAL on 30-JUN-16 in favour of Party  TW NO. CR 44162 LOADED WITH 23600 LTRS HSD, BOOKED VIDE RR NO. 129680 DT.27.10.96 , REPORTED MISSING. NON DELIVERY CLAIM PREFERRED WITH E.RLY VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/ER/E/3/97-98 DT.06.03.97. E.RLY ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT F CLAIM VIDE THEIR LETTER REF.NO. F1/ER/10669/4/97 DT.02.04.1997. FURTHER NO RESPONSE, EVEN AFTER SENDING REMINDERS VIDE LETTER DATED 4.10.97, 25.10.97, 22.11.97, 11.2.98 AND 18.06.98. FINALLY SUIT FILED IN RCT BHOPAL TO PROTECT IOC INTEREST.  02/Dec/2010  SUBJUDICE.NOT YET DETERMIND LD.RCT.  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 3  OA/73/1999  2020200196 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  219234  ER  Case Settled by RCT BHOPAL on 10-DEC-12 in favour of Party  TW NO. NE 250 CONTAINING SKO BOOKED VIDE RR NO. 961094 DT.06.02.96, RECEIVED EMPTY AT DESTINATION (I.E. SHAKTINAGAR ). TW¿S SEALS WERE MISSING AND OPEN DELIVERY TAKEN. CHECKED JOINTLY AND FOUND TANKWAGON EMPTY. QTY LOST- 24870 LTRS.SHORTAGE CLAIM PREFERRED WITH E.RLY VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/HNM/ER/L/16/96-97 DT.17.6.96. CCO, E.RLY ACKNOWLEDGED THE CLAIM VIDE LETTER REF.NO. F4/ER/1890/7/96 DATED 15.07.1996. REMINDERS WERE SENT ON 05.09.96, 29.04.97, 2.6.97. FINALLY WHEN NO RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED SUIT FILED IN RCT, BHOPAL. IN 2002, OUT OF COURT SETTLEMENT OFFER WAS GIVEN BY E.RLY. THEN WE HAVE SENT OUR CONSENT VIDE LETTER DATED 23.01.2002, FOLLOWED BY REMINDER DATED 04.04.2002 AND FINALLY AGAIN ON 25.02.2008. NO FURTHER RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM E.RLY.  02/Dec/2010  SUBJUDICE.NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD.RCT  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 4  OC/65/2002  2020200264 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  808581  ER  Case Settled by RCT BHOPAL on 13-OCT-15 in favour of Party  TW NO. NFR 90223 LOADED WITH HSD VIDE RR NO. 56945 DATED 08.09.1998, REPORTED MISSING. HENCE NDC CLAIM PREFERRED WITH E.RLY FOR LOSS OF 65.52 KL QTY. CONTAINING IN TW VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/ER/E/41/1998-99 DT.08.02.99. E.RLY ACKNOWLEDGED THE CLAIM VIDE THEIR LETTER REF.NO. F4/ER/2673/2/99/R03 DT.22.02.1999. E.RLY. DID NOT SETTLED THE CLAIM EVEN AFTER SENDING REMINDERS DATED 18.3.99 AND 27.04.2001. FINALLY CLAIM LODGED WITH RCT TO PROTECT IOC INTEREST.  02/Dec/2010  SUBJUDICE.NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD.RCT  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 5  OC/297/2000  2020200455 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  389589  ER  Case Settled by RCT BHOPAL on 13-OCT-15 in favour of Party  TWO TW NOS. CR-49661 & CR-49954 CONTAINING 24430 LTRS & 23840 LTRS HSD, BOOKED VIDE RR NO. 39085 DT.23.8.97 REPORTED MISSING. NON DELIVERY CAIM PREFERRED WITH E.RLY VIDE LETTER REF.NO.SD/ER/E/33/97-98, DT.19.1.98.EASTERN RLY ACKNOWLEDGED THE RECEIPT OF CLAIM VIDE THEIR LETTER REF.NO. F1/ER.30354/2/98. REMINDERS SENT VIDE LETTER DATED 20.4.98 & 29.5.2000. WHEN NO RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM E.RLY, FINALLY SUIT WAS FILED IN RCT,BHOPAL IN 2000.  02/Dec/2010  SUBJUDICE.NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD. RCT  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 6  OC/430/2002  2020201432 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  274925  ER  Case Settled by RCT BHOPAL on 10-DEC-12 in favour of Party  TW NO. NF-90918, NF-90905 LOADED VIDE RR NO. 245322 DT.23.10.99 , REPORTED TO JAYANT DEPOT WITH SEALS MISSING. IOC REQUESTED FOR OPEN DELIVERY TO STATION MASTER, SHAKTINAGAR VIDE LETTER DATED 27.10.99. STATIN MASTER REFUSED TO GIVE OPEN DELIVERY ON PLEA THAT JOINT CHECKING AT BUDGE BUDGE WAS DONE ON 23.10.99 BEFORE BY DEPARTURE. SHORTAGE OBSERVED WAS 15622 LTRS, 13040 LTRS RESPECTIVELY. TOTAL SHORTAGE RECORDED WAS 28662LTRS. CLAIM PREFERRED WITH E.RLY VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/ER/L/30/99-2000 DT. 27.3.2000.E.RLY ACKNOWLEDGED THE RECEIPT OF CLAIM VIDE LETTER REF.NO. F2/ER/5922/4/00/R03 DATED 17.04.2000. E.RLY REPUDIATED CLAIM VIDE LETTER DATED 09.02.2001 STATING REASON SEVEN & NINE. FINALLY SUIT FILED IN RCT, BHOPAL IN 2001.  02/Dec/2010  SUBJUDICE.NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD.RCT  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 7  OC/431/2002  2020201433 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  369914  ER  Case Settled by RCT BHOPAL on 10-DEC-12 in favour of Party  TW NO. NF-90914, NF-90909, NF-90910 LOADED VIDE RR NO. 245323 DT.23-24/10/99 , REPORTED WITH TOP AND BOTTOM SEALS MISSING & REQUESTED FOR OPEN DELIVERY TO STATION MASTER VIDE LETTER DATED 27.10.99. STATION MASTER DID NOT GIVE OPEN DELIVERY. SHORTAGE RECORDED WAS AS 13832 LTRS, 10928 LTRS, 13805 LTRS RESPECTIVELY. TOTAL SHORTAGE RECORDED IS 38565 LTRS. THEN CLAIM WAS PREFERRED WITH E.RLY VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/ER/L/33/99-2000 DATED 29.03.2000.E.RLY. ACKNOWLEDGED THE RECEIPT OF CLAIM VIDE LETTER REF.NO. F2/ER/5925/4/00/R03 DT. 17.04.2000. THEN CLAIM WAS REPUDIATED VIDE LETTER DATED 01.02.2001 STATING REASON SEVEN & NINE. FINALLY SUIT WAS FILED IN RCT IN 2002.  02/Dec/2010  SUBJUDICE.NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD.RCT  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 8  OC/433/2002  2020201434 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  532978  ER  Case Settled by RCT BHOPAL on 13-OCT-15 in favour of Party  TW NO. WR-896594, WR-896562, WR-896519 & CR-1926078 BOOKED VIDE RR NO. 245325 DATED 23-25/10/99 REPORTED TO DESTINATION JAYANT ON 30.10.99 AND FOUND HEAVY SHORTAGE. REQUEST FOR GIVING OPEN DELIVERY WAS GIVEN TO DOM, CHOPAN AS THERE WAS CONTINUOUSLY SHORTAGE REPORTED AND TAMPERING IN SEALS REPORTED. EVEN MATTER WAS REPORTED CTM, BUDGE-BUDGE. CTM, BUDGE-BUDGE TOOK UP WITH DGM(VIGILANCE), EASTERN RAILWAY TO LOOK INTO THE MATTER OF RAKES LOADED EX.BUDGE-BUDGE AS CONTINUOUSLY SHORTAGE AND SEALS TAMPERING WAS REPORTED BY RECEIVING LOCATION. E.RAILWAY DID NOT GAVE OPEN DELIVERY. HOWEVER CLAIM WAS PREFERRED WITH E.RLY VIDE LETTER REF. NO. SD/ER/L/34/99-2000 DATED 29.03.2000. EASTERN RAILWAY REPUDIATED CLAIM VIDE LETTER REF.NO. F2/5932/4/2000/RECON DATED 21.7.2000 SAYING THAT, NO ADVERSE REMARK ON OPT-18 & RAILWAY AUTHORITY NOT GRANTED OPEN DELIVERY. FINALLY SUIT WAS FILED IN RCT,BHOPAL IN 2002.  02/Dec/2010  SUBJUDICE.NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD.RCT  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 9  OC/844/2003  2020302310 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  566780  ER  RCT/CCC  THE STATEMENT MADE BY RAILWAY IS PARTLY CORRECT. IT IS VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THAT THE BARRELS ARE NOT SUPPLIED BY IOCL.HENCE IOCL¿S CLAIM IS JUSTIFIED.  30/Jul/2010  JOINT CHECKING REPORT DISCLOSES THAT LEAKAGE FOR SHORTAGE AS DETECTED WAS THE CAUSE OF BARREL CRACK & THE BARREL WAS SUPPLIED BY APPLICANT.NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD.RCT.  18/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 10  OC/385/2004  2020400153 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  291720  ER  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 07-MAY-15 in favour of Party  THE CLAIM LODGED WITH RAILWAYS AS WELL AS BEFORE RCT WITHIN TIME. MATTER SUBJUDICED.  30/Jul/2010  SUBJUDICE.NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD. RCT.  18/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 11  OA/105/2007  2020600319 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  105741541  ER  RCT/CCC  LPG PLANT DURGAPUR HAVING ADEQUATE UNLOADING FACILITIES FOR 36 TANK WAGONS AT A TIME.DUE TO RAILWAY PROBLEM RAKES WERE PLACED IN MORE THAN TWO INSTALLMENTS. HENCE IOCL¿S CLAIM, RECOVERED BY RAILWAYS, IS JUSTIFIED.  02/Aug/2010  SUBJUDICE.NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD.RCT.  18/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 12  OA/294/2000  2020600398 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  262337  ER  Case Settled by RCT BHOPAL on 13-OCT-15 in favour of Party  TW NO. CR-44531 LOADED WITH HSD, VIDE RR NO. 138913 DATED 08.07.1997 REPORTED MISSING. NDC CLAIM WAS PREFERRED ON E.RLY VIDE LETTER REF.NO.SD/ER/E/32/97-98, DATED 05.12.97. NO RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM E.RLY TILL 2000. THEN CLAIM WAS PREFERRED WITH RCT, BHOPAL. CCM, E.RLY VIDE LETTER REFERENCE NO. F2/27792/1/98/ RECON DATED 24.12.2000, THAT SAID TW WAS MADE OVER TO OTPS SIDING OBRADAM ON 13.01.99 AS UNCONNECTED. HENCE ADVISED TO IOC TO SETTLE THE ISSUE WITH OTPS,OBRADAM. IOC RESPONDED TO E.RLY STATED THAT, AFTER GETTING CONFIRMATION FROM OTPS,OBRADAM, THE BILL WILL BE RAISED AND CASE SHALL BE WITHDRAWN. THEN THE ISSUE WAS TAKEN UP WITH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OBRADAM REGARDING MAKING PAYMENT TO IOC AGAINST DECANTATION OF SAID TW VIDE LETTER DATED 23.9.2008. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OBRADAM RESPONDED VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 15.10.2008 THAT, THEY CAN NOT MAKE PAYMENT TO IOC DIRECTLY, AS THE CLAIMS FOR THEIR MISSING TWS ARE PENDING WITH RAILWAY. ACCORDINGLY IOC COMMUNICATED TO E.RLY VIDE LETTER DATED 23.10.2008 AND REQUESTED THEM TO SETTLE CLAIM BY MAKING PAYMENT TO IOC.  02/Dec/2010  SUBJUDICE.NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD.RCT  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 13  OA/49/2000  2020600400 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  246958  ER  Case Settled by RCT BHOPAL on 31-DEC-12 in favour of Party  TW NO. ER-92907 LOADED WITH HSD-24080 LTRS, BOOKED VIDE RR NO.129685 DT.19.10.96 REPORTED EMPTY AT DESTINATION, I.E. AT JAYANT. AT LOADING LOCATION TW RELEASED AS LOADED , WHILE AFTER REACHING TO DESTINATION TW FOUND EMPTY. THIS IS REPORTED IN GUARD GUIDANCE REPORT OF STATION MASTER ALSO. HENCE CLAIM PREFERRED WITH E.RLY VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/ER/L/1/97-98 DT.01.04.97.E. RLY ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT OF CLAIM VIDE LETTER REF.NO.F4/ER/12131/5/97 DT.2.5.97. FURTHER NO RESPONSE FROM E.RLY. REMINDERS SENT VIDE LETTER DATED 20.6.97, 16.12.97 AND 08.07.99. FINALLY SUIT FILED IN RCT, BHOPAL.  02/Dec/2010  SUBJUDICE.NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD.RCT  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 14  OA/608/1998  2020600401 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  143961  ER  Case Settled by RCT BHOPAL on 10-DEC-12 in favour of Party  TW NO. SE-95477 LOADED WITH SKO- 25150 LTRS , BOOKED VIDE RR NO. 960984 DT.301.12.95 WERE REPORTED EMPTY ON ARRIVAL AT DESTINATION. TOP SEAL WAS MISSING AND BOTTOM SEAL WAS AT PLACE . JOINT CERTIFICATE MADE AND REPORTED TW EMPTY. AS PER LOADING LOCATION TW WAS LOADED AND JOINTLY CHECKED BY RAILWAY OFFICIALS AT BUDGE-BUDGE. THEREFORE BASED ON INFORMATION SHORTAGE CLAIM WAS PREFERRED VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/HNM/ER/L/14/96-97 DT.14.6.96.E.RLY ACKNOWLEDGED CLAIM RECEIPT VIDE LETTER REF.NO. F3/ER/1509/7/96 DATE 08.07.1996. REMINDER SENT ON 5.9.96. E.RLY REPUDIATED CLAIM VIDE LETTER DATED 16.4.97 STATING THAT, OPT-18 SHOWS NO ADVERSE REMARKS. RE-APPEAL MADE VIDE LETTER DATED 13.6.97. THEN, SUIT WAS FILED IN RCT, BHOPAL.  02/Dec/2010  SUBJUDICE.NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD.RCT  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 15  OA/422/2000  2020701177 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  182281  ER  Case Settled by RCT BHOPAL on 13-OCT-15 in favour of Party  TW NO. ER-61211 WAS LEAKY WHILE PLACING AND TOP /BOTTOM SEALS WERE MISSING. OPEN DELIVERY OBTAINED. OBSERVED SHORTAGE OF 10766 LTRS. CLAIM WAS LODGED WITH CCM, E.RLY. VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/ER/L/5/98-99 DATED 26.05.98, CCM, E.RLY ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT OF CLAIM LETTER VIDE THEIR LETTER REF. NO.F3/ER/41430/6/98/RO3 DT.12.06.98. CCM. E.RLY INFORMED VIDE LETTER DATED 06.10.99. THAT , CLAIM IS SANCTION FOR RS.100470/- AND SAID IT WILL BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE VALUES OF UNCONNECTED TWS CONSUMED BY IOC AT DIFFERENT SIDINGS. THE SAME WAS PROTESTED BY IOC VIDE LETTER DATED 20.10.99. AGAIN CCM, E.RLY SENT LETTER DATED 26.06.2000 THAT, CLAIM SANCTION IS AMENDED TO RS. 110324/- AND IT IS ADJUSTED AGAINST UNCONNECTED TWS DECANTED AT JAYANT SIDING. THE SAME WAS AGAIN PROTESTED BY IOC VIDE LETTER DATED 24.08.2000. THEN WHEN PAYMENT WAS NOT RECEIVED CLAIM WAS PREFERRED WITH RCT, BHOPAL.  02/Dec/2010  SUBJUDICE.NOT YET DETERMIND BY LD.RCT.  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 16  OA/714/2007  2020701310 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  550810  ER  RCT/CCC  CLAIM ACCEPTED BY RAILWAYS BUT AMOUNT HAS BEEN ADJUSTED UNILATERALLY FOR WHICH CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE RCT IS SUBJUDICED.  30/Jul/2010  WEAK ON MERIT.NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD.RCT.  18/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 17  OA/4/2008  2020701353 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  139818  ER  RCT/CCC  CLAIM ACCEPTED BY RAILWAYS BUT AMOUNT HAS BEEN ADJUSTED UNILATERALLY FOR WHICH CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE RCT IS SUBJUDICED.  30/Jul/2010  WEAKE ON MERIT.NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD. RCT.  18/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 18  OA/298/2000  2020800403 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  261683  ER  Case Settled by RCT BHOPAL on 30-MAR-16 in favour of Party  TW NO. ER-60450 LOADED WITH HSD ¿ 23840 LTRS, VIDE RR NO. 139124 DT.30.8.97 REPORTED MISSING. CLAIM PREFERRED WITH E.RLY VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/ER/E/34/97-98 DT.19.01.98.E.RLY ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT OF CLAIM VIDE LETTER REF.NO. F4/ER/30360/2/98/R03 DATED 10.02.98 REMINDERS WERE SENT ON 23.3.98 & 29.5.2000. E.RLY NOT RESPONDED WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD OF THREE YEARS. THEN SUIT FILED IN RCT,BHOPAL TO PROTECT IOC INTEREST.  02/Dec/2010  SUBJUDICE NOT YET DETERMIND BY LD. RCT  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 19  OC/92/2004  2010400543 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  95200  NR  RCT/LKO  THE TANK WAGON NO.CR-1926189 WAS SHIPPED EX MATHURA TO MUGALSARAI AGAINST RR NO.787333, INV. NO.01 DT. 24.05.2002 CONTAINING 65760 LTRS OF HSD ON ACCOUNT OF HPCL. AS PER JDC, SAID T/W RECEIVED AT DESTINATION ON 27.05.2002 AND WAS FOUND LEAKING FROM BOTTOM VALVE AGAINST SHIPPING DIP OF 249.0 CMS . THE DIP RECEIVED WAS 230.0 CMS. RESULTING A NET SHORTAGE OF 4945 OF HSD AMOUNTING RS.71784/-  04/Aug/2011  1-BOTTOM SEAL WAS NOT PROVEDED AT FORWARDING STATION AS PER RPF REPORT. 2-NO SIGN OF LEAKAGE FOUND AT THE TIME OF ARRIVAL. 3-LOADING SEALING AND DIP MEASURMENT IS NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY AS PER R R.AS SUCH RAILWAY IS NOT LAIBLE.  03/Aug/2011  No  No  No  No
 20  OC/91/2004  2010400550 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  71784  NR  RCT/LKO  THE TANK WAGON NOS.CR-181 & WR-986551 WERE SHIPPED EX PANIPAT TO AMOUSI IRD AGAINST RR NO.008762, INV. NO.024 DT. 14.01.2002 CONTAINING 66760 & 67200 LTRS OF MS ON ACCOUNT OF HPCL. AS PER JDC, SAID T/WS RECEIVED AT DESTINATION ON 15.05.2002 WITH TOP & BOTTOM SEALS MISSING IT WAS FOUND LEAKING CONTINUOUSLY FROM BOTTOM PIPE LINE DROP BY DROP.AGAINST SHIPPING DIP OF 255.5 CMS & 254.9 CMS THE DIP RECEIVED WERE 247.0 CMS. & 245.4 CMS. RESULTING A NET SHORTAGE OF 1911 & 2458 LTRS (TOTAL 4369 LTRS) OF MS AMOUNTING RS.95200/- .AS PER THE JDC BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE OF KANPUR LEAKING  04/Aug/2011  1-BOTH WAGON RECHED ON 15/05/2002 WITHOUT DELY IN ROUTE. 2-TOP AND BOTTOM SEAL FOUND MISING BUT TOP AND BOTTOM VALVE AND MAIN HOLE COVER FOUND INTECT AT THE TIME OF JOIN DIP. AS SUCH RAILWAY IS NOT LAIBLE.  03/Aug/2011  No  No  No  No
 21  OC/471/2000  2030000133 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  204879  NR  HC/DLI  IOCL HAS BOOKED 24 TANK WAGON VIDE RR. NO-630585 DATED 15.12.97 FROM BONGAINGAON TO SSB. OUT OF SAID CONSIGNMENT TANK WAGON NO.- SE 77868 CONTAINING 23710 LTRS OF LDO DESPATCHED FROM BONGAINGAON TO SSB NOT DELIVERED AT SSB AND NON DELIVERY CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED BY RLYS. ON 10.3.98 PRODUCT LDO. COST OF 23710 LTRS OF LDO AT THE RATE OF RS.8641.20 PER KL IS RS.2,04,879. WHILE DECIDING THE MATTER THE LD. TRIBUNAL HAS GONE BEYOND THE PLEADING AND HAS DECIDED THE CASE NOT ON MERITS BY DIRECTING THAT THE THE TANK WAGON NO. SE-77868 HAS BEEN ADJUSTED WITH UNCONECTED TANK WAGON NO. SR-34399. IT IS SUBMITED THAT THERE IS NO SUCH PROVISION UNDER THE RLYS. ACT FOR SUCH ADJUSTMENT. FURTHER NO OIL COMPANIES HAVE AGREED TO SUCH ADJUSTMENT. THE VALID CLAIM OF IOC HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY CITING THE ABOVE. HENCE THE CLAIM IS BY IOC.  14/Jul/2011  THE CLAIMWAS DENIED TO BE MAINTAINABLE .AS PER REMARKES ON RR,THE RAILWAY ADMN HAS NOT WITNESSED THE LOADING SEALING AND DIP MEASUREMENT WHICH WAS DONE BY THE IOC STAFF IN THEIR SIDING .THE WAGON AS BOOKED ARRIVED AT LUMDING ON 18.10.98 AS UNCONNECTED AND WAS PLACED AT IOC /SIDING ON 01.12.98 ,WHO DECANTED THE WAGON .THE APPLICANT SHOULD TAKE UP THE MATTER WITH THEIR OWN OFFICE AT LUMDING FOR ADJUSTMENT OF AMOUNT AND THE RAILWAY ARE NOT LIABLE TO PAY ANY COMPENSATION .  07/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 22  OA/171/2002  2030000306 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  236057  NR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT DELHI on 29-OCT-09 in favour of Party  THIS CLAIM WAS DISMISSED BY RCT ,DELHI ON 29/7/2008 ON THE GROUNDS THAT OUR CLAIM PETITION WAS NOT FILED WITHIN TIME FRAME. AS PER OUR RECORD CLAIM NOTICE WAS SERVED THROUGH REGISTERED POST ON 12/2/1998.THE FIRST NFORMATION OF LOSS WAS INTIMATED TO RAILWAYS ON 30/11/97, WHEN THE JOINT DIPPING OF THE TANK WAGONS WERE DONE BY US ALONG WITH RAILWAY OFFICIALS . IN THIS CONNECTION , WE WOULD REQUEST TO REFER CLAUSE NO. 2 UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE RAILWAY ACT , 1989 WHERE IN IT IS VERY CLEARLY STATED THAT ANY INFORMATION MADE IN WRITING WITHIN THE SAID PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS WILL BE DEEMED TO BE A NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION. THE TW WAS ORIGINALLY LOADED AS PER THE CTCC CHART OF THE TW. HOWEVER DUE TO REASONS, NOT KNOWN TO US, THE PRODUCT OF TW NO. WR 906672 BOOKED UNDER RR NO. 831812 DATED 07/11/1997EX KANDLA WAS TRANSSHIPPED TO TANK WAGON NO. WR 907054 BY RAILWAY OFFICIALS EN ROUTE. THIS TANKWAGON WAS THAN PLACED AT OUR SHAKURBASTI INSTALLATION ON 30/11/97 AFTER A GAP OF 23 DAYS. AT THIS TIME JOINT DIPPING WAS DONE IN THE PRESENCE OF OUR AS WELL AS RAILWAY OFFICIALS . THIS JOINT DIP CERTIFICATE , DULY SIGNED BY RAILWAY OFFICIALS WAS ALSO ATTACHED WITH OUR CLAIM NOTICE SEND TO CHIEF CLAIMS OFFICER, NEW DELHI ON 12/2/1998 BY REGD. POST. IN THE JOINT CERTIFICATE IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE PRODUCT WAS SHORT BY 48.6 CMS ( 11457 LTRS) IN THE TRANSSHIPPED TW. WE , THEREFORE, REQUEST YOU TO KINDLY GRANT THE CLAIMED COMPENSATION OF RS.236057/- ALONG WITH INTEREST  02/Jul/2010  NO STATUARY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 106 OF RLY. ACT GIVEN. THE WAGON ARRIVED AT SHAKURBASTI YARD ON 14.10HRS. AND NO LEAKAGE WAS FOUND ATSHAKURBASTI YARD. THIS IS A CASE OF SHORT LOADING BY THE APPLICANT FROM THE FORWARDING STATION AND THEREFORE THE CLAIM WAS REPUDIATED. THE WAGON ARRIVED ON 30/11/97 BUT THE JOINTDIP WAS TAKEN ON 09/12/97. THE TRANSHIPMENT WAS DONE AT FORWARDING STATION THE ALLEGED GOODS WERE NEVER INSPECTED/ SUPERVISED BY RLY. STAFF. THE RAILWAY RECEIPT BEARS THE REMARKS THAT TANK WAGON WAS LOADED AND SEALED BY OWNER IN SIDING.  05/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 23  OA/253/2001  2030100251 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  174924  NR  HC/ALD  THE LOADING STATEMENT CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THE ACTUAL QTY SHIPPED AND EXCISE DUTY PAID THEREON .THE JOINT DIP CERTIFICATE CLEARLY MENTIONS THAT THERE WAS A MASSIVE BODY LEAK FROM THE WELDING JOINT OF STAIRS (SEVENTH STAIR FROM BOTTOM) AND IT WAS SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN IN HINDI AS BODY LEAK WHICH WAS VIEWED BY ALL PRESENT.THIS HAS ALSO BEEN RECORDED IN THE JOINT OBSERVATION STATEMENT BY ALL THE 3 OIL COMPANIES. THE ABOVE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE LOSS/SHORTAGE HAS OCCURED DUE TO WILFUL NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF RLYS. THUS THE QTY LOADED IS ESTABLISHED BY LOADING STATEMENT, AND LOSS QTY IS ESTABLISHED BY JOINT DIP CERTIFICATE AND LOSS DUE TO WELDING JOINT LEAK IS ESTABLISHED BY JOINT OBSERVATION STATEMENT BY ALL 3 OIL COMAPNIES AS WELL AS REMARKS ON JOINT DIP CERTIFICATE.HENCE THE AMOUNT OF RS 174924 IS PAYABLE BY RLYS  16/Jul/2010   BOOKING OF THE CONSIGNMENT VIDE RR. NO 899944 DATED 06-3-99 WERE ADMITTED AND REST OF THE ALLIGATION WERE DENIED. THE CONSIGNMENT IN QUESTION WAS LOADED FROM THE PRIVATE SIDING OF THE CONSIGNOR AND THE SAME WAS DELIVERED TO THE PRIVATE SIDING OF THE CONSIGNEE. THE SAME WAS BOOKED UNDER L CONDITION AND SAID TO CONTAIN BASIS AND THAT THERE WAS NO NEGLIGANCE AND CARELESSNESS ON THE PART OF THE RESPODENT IN HANDLING THE CONSIGNMENT IN QUESTION AND THAT WHATEVER WAS LOADED WAS DELIVERED WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE ENROUTE.  13/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 24  OC/56/2006  2030200065 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  312161  NR  Case Settled by RCT DELHI on 20-MAY-14 in favour of Party  LETTER FROM BPCL CONFIRMS NONRECEIPT OF T/W NO NF 5653 AND SUBSEQUENT DECANTATION ON 1.11.97.NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE SAME HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE RAILWAYS.ALSO THE BPCLS LIST OF UNCONNECTED T/W FOR THE PERIOD 1982 TO 2001 SUBMITTED RCT DELHI DOESNOT MENTION T/W NO NF5653.HENCE RAILWAYS TO COMPENSATE THE AMOUNT OF RS312161  01/Jul/2010  THE TANK WAGON NO. NF 5653 WAS DECANTED AND CONSUMED BY BPC ON 01-11-97, THAT AS PER MUTUL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE OIL COMPANIES THE DECANTATION AND CONSUMPTION OF THE CONTENTS OF THE TANK WAGON OF THE COMPANY BY ANOTHER COMPANY IS ADJUSTABLE BETWEEN THEM. THAT EVEN OTHERWISE. THE APPLICANT IS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE COMPENSATION IN CASE OF NON-DELIVERY CASES AS THE DELIVERY OF SEVERAL NUMBER OF UNCONNECTED TANK WAGONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE APPLICANT NOT BELONGINGTO IT AND THE APPLICANT HAS DULY DECANTED AND SAME CONSUMED THE SAME. THE CONSIGNMENT HAD BEEN LOADED, DIPPED ETC. BY THE CONSIGNOR IN ITS OWN SIDING WITHOUT IN THE PRESENCE AND SUPERVISION OF THE RAILWAY STAFF. THE REMARKS ON THE RR CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THERE IS NO PROOF OF THE FACT THAT THE QUANTEM OF THE GOODS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN DESPATCHED, HAD ACTUALLY BEEN DESPACHED AND WHETHER THE SEALING WAS DONE BY THE COSIGNOR/SENDER. IT WAS PRAYED INTER-ALIA ON OTHER GROUND FOR DISMISSED OF THE CLAIM APPLICATION.  21/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 25  OA/7/2008  2030200136 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  113286  NR  Case Settled by RCT DELHI on 20-MAY-14 in favour of Party  CGC,SSB HAS GIVEN A NDC ON 16.4.1996 STATING THAT THE T/WNO WR 45303 BOOKED UNDER RR NO 716199 DT 5.12.99 FOR 21940 LTS OF FO FROM BUDGEBUDGE TO SHAKURBASTI ¿WAS OUT OF DESTINATION AND DUE TO THE PARTY¿.NO INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN TO THE RAILWAY AUTHORITIES FOR RE-BOOKING OF T/W WR NO 45303 TO NAGAL DAM.HENCE THE AMOUNT IS PAYABLE TO HPCL. THE CASE WAS REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES VIDE OUR LETTER MNZ/RK/FIN DATED 19.1.2005 AND IS STILL PENDING WITH COD  01/Jul/2010   THE APPLICANT HAS NOT TAKEN ANY SANCTION TO FILED THE PRESENT CASE FROM COMMETTEE CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA. THE PARTICULARS RELATING TO THE BOOKING ARE ON THE BASIS OF THE FORWARDING NOTE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. IT IS DENIED THAT THE TANK WAGON CONTAINING 2/940 LETRS. OF F.O. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS NOT BOOKED UNDER RAILWAY RISK. THE LOADING DIP MEASURMENT NOT SUPERVISED BY THE RAILWAY. THE SUBJECT TANK WAGON WAS BOOKED UNDER R R AND ARRIVED AT SSB ON 29/12/95 AND WAS PLACED TO H P C L SIDING ON 3/01/96 AND IT WAS REBOOKED TO NAGAL DAM ON 18/1/96 WHICH WAS DULY INFORMED TO THE APPLICANT BY THE RESPODENT VIDE LETTER DATED 19/7/96.  07/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 26  OA/8/2008  2030200137 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  153807  NR  Case Settled by RCT DELHI on 20-MAY-14 in favour of Party  CGC,SSB HAS GIVEN A NDC ON 15.5.95 STATING THAT THE T/WNO WR 44693 BOOKED UNDER RR NO 437386 DT 23.2.1995 FOR 23590 LTS OF LDO FROM NEW JALPAIGURI TO SHAKURABSTI ¿WAS OUT OF DESTINATION AND DUE TO THE PARTY¿. THE CCO NEWDELHI VIDE THEIR LETTER 5.3.2002 HAD ADVISED THE HPC THAT RETRACING MEMO HAD BEEN ISSUED ON 1.1.2002 FOR TRACING THE NON DELIVERY T/W NO WR 44693.HENCE THE AMOUNT IS PAYABLE TO HPCL. THE CASE WAS REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES VIDE OUR LETTER MNZ/RK/FIN DATED 4.1.2005 AND IS STILL PENDING WITH COD  01/Jul/2010  THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT TAKEEN ANY SANCTION TO FIT THE PRESENT APPLICATION FROM THE HIGH POWER COMETTEE CONSTITED BY THE GOVT IN THIS REGARD. HAVE THE APPLICATIN IS LIABLE TO DISMISSED.IT WAS DENIED THAT THE SUBJECT TANK WAGON CONTAINS 23590 LITRES OF LDO. THE LOADING DIP MEASUREMENT NOT SUPERVISED/VERIFIED BY THE RLY LODING AND SEALING DONE AT THE PRIVATE SIDING OF THE APPLICANT. THAT THE SUBJECT CONSINGMENT WAGON WAS DELIVERED TO THE APPLICANT COMPANY ON11.3.95 WHICH WAS DULLY INFORMED TO THE APPLICANT BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE LATTER CLEAR RECEIPT DELIVERY DT.3.10.96  10/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 27  OC/245/2002  2030200182 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  192227  NR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT DELHI on 09-FEB-11 in favour of Party  IOC HAD BOOKED 8 TWS LDO EX IOC PANKI TO IOC SSB VIDE RR NO. 887350 DATED 23/24.9.1999. 1 TW NO. ER 35946 WAS NOT DELIVERED AND NDC DATED 27.11.1999 WAS ISSUED BY THE RAILWAYS AND CLAIM NO. SSB/1716/99 DATED 7.2.2000 WAS LODGED FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.192227/-. RCT HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM ON THE BASIS THAT IOC HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE SERVICE OF NOTICE WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME FRAME OF SIX MONTHS. THE CLAIM STATUS HAS BEEN UPLOADED BY NORTHERN RAILWAYS ON THE WEBSITE CLAIMS.INDIANRAIL.GOV.IN. THIS CLAIM HAS BEEN UPLOADED AGAINST CLAIM NO. 103007338 WITH CLAIM RECEIVED DATE AS 16.2.2000. CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE CLAIM WAS RECEIVED BY THE RAILWAYS WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. SINCE THE TW WAS NOT DELIVERED AND THE CLAIM WAS FILED WELL WITHIN THE LIMITATION PERIOD, THE AMOUNT OF RS.192227/- ALONGWITH INTEREST SHOULD BE PAID TO IOC.  13/Sep/2010  IT IS A CASE OF NON-DELIVERY. THE RESPONDENT HAS BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE NON SERVICE OF A LEGAL AND VALID NOTICE U/S 106 UPON THEM WITH IN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD AND THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE CONTRARY.SAID TO CONTAIN RAILWAY RECEIPT WAS ISSUED. THE SUBJECT TANK WAGON NO. ER 35946 WAS LOADED ON 24.9.99 AND ARRIVED AT SHAKURBASTI ON 25.9.99 WITHOUT LEAKING CONDITION AND FOUND QUITE EMPTY .MORE OVER THERE WAS NO ANY REMARKS ON VEHICLE GUIDENCE BY GUARD FOR ANY LEAKAGE ENROUTE. HENCE CLAIM IS REPUDIATED.  19/Feb/2010  No  No  No  No
 28  OC/60/2006  2030200225 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  256654  NR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT DELHI on 19-OCT-10 in favour of Party  RAILWAYS TO PROVIDE THE RR COPY OF THE T/W NO NE 46937  19/May/2010  IT IS A CASE OF NON-DELIVERY. THE RR NO-C521252 DATED 28/1/96 WERE ISSUED FOR THE TANK WAGON NE 46993 FROM KRIR TO SSB CONTAINING HSD. THE ENQUIRY WAS MADE AND IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE TANK WAGON NO-46993 WAS BOOKED UNDER RRNO-521230 DATED 28/1/96 FROM KRIR TO HISSAR CONTAINING SKO BY IOC. ONE TANK WAGON CANNOT BE BOOKED FOR TWO RR WITH DIFFERENT COMMODITY.THE IOC HAS ISSUED LETTER OF CONFIRMATION /DECANTATION ON 17/21-4-07 CONFERMING THAT THE TANK WAGON NE 46993 WAS DECANTED BY THEM ON 1/2/1996.  19/Feb/2010  No  No  No  No
 29  OA/326/1998  2030300125 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  52066  NR  HC/DLI  IOC BOOKED LDO EX-BARAUNI TO SHAKURBASTI VIDE RR NO.553070 DATED 27.07.95. OUT OF 4 TW, TW NO. ER-61995 WAS PLACED AS UNCONNECTED ON 31.07.95 AND RECEIVED WITHOUT TOP AND BOTTOM SEALS AND LEBELS/REMARKS/RAILWAY CARD AND IN JOINT DIP SHORTAGE OF 8281 LITRES WERE FOUND. ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S 78B WAS SERVED UPON CCO, NR, DELHI AND THE SAME WAS DULY ACKNOWLEDGED ON 21.11.95.RESPONDENT VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 14.05.1997 REPUDIATED THE CLAIM AGAINST WHICH CLAIM NO.OC326/98 WAS LODGED BY IOC BEFORE RCT-DELHI WHICH WAS ALLOWED WITH COST AND INTEREST ON 28.07.01. RESPONDENT RAILWAY CHALLENGED THE SAID ORDER BEFORE HONORABLE HIGH COURT IN APPEAL NO.67/08 FROM WHERE CASE WAS REFERRED TO JIDRP.  10/Oct/2011  IT IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE. THE TANK WAGON RECEVIED ON 31/7/95 IN SEALED CONDITION WITH SEALS INTACT.THE IOC DECLARED.THE WAGON AS UNCONNECTED.THE WAGON REMANIED AT THE SIDING OF THE PARTY FROM 31/7/95 TO 16/8/95.THE TOP MASTER VALVE WAS NOT TEMPERED WITH AND SEALS WAS INTACT AT THE TIME OF PLACEMENT.IT SEEMS THAT SHORT LOADING WAS DONE AND RLY IS PROTECTED UNDER SECTION 93(F)(I),94&98 OF RLY ACT.  19/Feb/2010  No  No  No  No
 30  TA/2/2001  2030300253 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  27198  NR  HC/ALD  THE RR AND THE LOADING STATEMENT ARE THE PROOF FOR THE QTY SHIPPED AND UNLOADING STATEMENT AND JOINT DIP CERTIFICATE SIGNED BOTH BY RLYS AND HPCL ARE PROOF FOR THE QTY RECEIVED.THE JOINT DIP CLEARLY STATES THAT TOP AND BOTTOM SEALS WERE MISSING AND THERE IS A SHORTFALL OF 1853 LTS WHICH NEEDS TO MADE GOOD BY THE PLYS.  21/Jul/2010   BOOKING PARTICULARS AS MENTIONED IN RR. WERE ADDMITED AND ALL OTHER PARTICULARS WERE DENIED. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED BY THE APPLICANT UNDER THEIR SUPERVISION. SENDER,S WEIGHT AS MENTION WAS ACCEPTED. THE TANK WAGON WAS SEALED BY THE CLAIMANT HIMSELF.THE CONSIGNMENT REACHED ITS DESTINATION TO PROPER CONDITION. THE TANK WAGON NO CR 1926122 REACHED ITS DESTINATION ON 27-11-1993 AND TOP AND BOTTOM SEALS WERE INTACT AND THERE WAS NO SIGN OF ANY LEAKAGE. SO, THE RESPODENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY LOSS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED TO THE CLAIMANT.  13/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 31  TA/841/1997  2030300373 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  80072  NR  HC/ALD  27320 LTS OF HSD WAS BOOKED FOR TRANSPORTED FROM KANDLA TO MORADABAD AS PER THE RR NO 714292 DATED 19.5.1989 BUT DIDNOT REACH THE DESTINATION AND NON DELIVERY CERTIFICATE NO 260 CGS MB-89 DATED 21.9.1989 WAS ISSUED WHICH SHOWS DELIBERATE CARELESSNESS AND NEGLIGENCE IN THE PART OF RAILWAYS.SINCE THE RLYS HAVE THEMSELVES ADMITTED NON DELIVERY SO NO FURTHER EVIDENCE OF MISCONDUCT ON PART OF RESPONDENT IS REQUIRED  16/Jul/2010  THE APPLICATION WAS BARRED U/S 106 OF RLY ACT. 1989.THE CLAIM APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED,VERIFIED AND FILED BY THE COMPETENT PERSON.THAT THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED AT THE PRIVATE SIDING OF THE APPLICANT COMPANY FOR WHICH THE RLY. ADMINISTRATION WAS FULLY PROTECTED SAID TO CONTAIN WITH REGARD TO QUANTITY AND QUALITY LOADED, SENDERS DECLEARED WEIGHT ACCEPTED FOR CHARGES OF FREIGHT.  15/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 32  TA/843/1997  2030300374 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  110654  NR  Case Settled by RCT GHAZIABAD on 01-JUN-06 in favour of Party  THE T/W NO CR-44757 CONTAINING 23600 LTS OF HSD WAS DESPATCHED FROM KANDLA TO MORADABAD UP ALONGWITH 5 OTHER T/WS UNDER RR NO 954082 AND INVOICE NO 307 DATED 4.3.1992.HPCL HAS PAID EXCISE DUTY ON THE SAME CONSIGNMENT.THE JOINT SURVEY REPORT DATED 25.4.1992 CLEARLY STATES THAT THE SAID T/W WAS PLACED EMPTY FOR DECANTATION.RLYS DIDNOT PROVE THE PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE T/W THAT WAS THE PROPERTY IN POSSESSION OF THE RLYS IT IS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF CARELESSNESS AND NEGLIGENCE OF THE RLYS THAT THEY DIDNOT SUPPLY THE FIT T/W FOR TRASPORTATION AS WELL AS DIDNOT TAKE PROPER CARE DURING TRANSPORTATION.  22/Jul/2010  BOOKING PARTICULAR AS MENTIONEDIN THE RR WERE ADMITTED AND REST OF THE CONTENTIONWERE DENIED ON MERIT IT WAS STATED THAT THE CONSIGNMENT IN QUESTION WAS LOADED FROM THE PRIVATE SIDING OF THE CONSIGNOR AND THE SAME WAS DELIVERED TO THE PRIVATE SIDING OF THE CONSIGNEE AND THAT THE SAME WAS BOOKED UNDER THE CONDITION AND SAID TO CONTAIN BASIS AND THAT THERE WAS NO NEGLIGENCE AND CARELESSNESSSON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENT IN HANDLING .THE CONSIGNMENT IN QUESTION AND THAT WHATEVER WAS LOADED WAS DELIVERED AT DESTINATION WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE ENROUTE. ON THERE GROUND DISMISSED OF THE APPLICATION WAS SOUGHT .  12/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 33  OA/1342/1998  2030301527 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  80790  NR  Case Settled by RCT GORAKHPUR on 29-NOV-11 in favour of Party  IOC VIDE RR 28909 DATED 20.11.95 BOOKED A RAKE OF MS EX-BGB TO SFG. OUT OF SAID RAKE, TW NO.WR 906553 WITH DIP OF 255.5 CM WAS FOUND LEAKING AT DESTINATION LOCATION RESULTING INTO LOSS OF 5129 LITRES OF MS (RECEIPT DIP 231 CM) WORTH RS.80,790.00. IN JOINT DIP, TOP & BOTTOM SEALS WERE FOUND MISSING PROVING THAT SOME TAMPERING WAS COMMITTED ENROUTE. FURTHER, AT ALL THE LOADING LOCATIONS, PAID RAILWAY STAFF ARE POSTED TO SUPERVISE THE LOADING. AT LOADING LOCATION, IN CASE ANY LEAKAGE/DEFECT, BEFORE OR AFTER LOADING, IS NOTICED IN ANY TW, RAILWAY STAFF ISSUES MEMO IN THIS REGARD AND DETAIN THE DEFECTIVE TW. HENCE RAILWAYS ARE LIABLE TO MAKE GOOD OF THE LOSS. MANDATORY NOTICE DATED 21/26.03.96. WAS ALSO SERVED BUT OF NO AVAIL.  14/Oct/2011  THE SUBJECT WAGON REACHED WITH TOP BOTTOM VALVE, NUTS BOLTE PROPERLY CLOSED. THE PACKING CONDITION AS APPLICABLE TO THE COMMODITY WAS NOT FULLFILLED BY THE CONSIGHOR.  03/Oct/2011  No  No  No  No
 34  OC/65/2001  2030301540 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  22948  NR  RCT/GKP  THE TANK WAGON NOCR-1916019 WAS SHIPPED EX KANDLA TO BANTHRA AGAINST RR NO.848215, INV.NO.223 DT. 31.1.98 CONTAINING 67800 LTRS OF SKO ON ACCOUNT OF HPCL. AS PER JDC, SAID TANK WAGON RECEIVED AT DESTINATION ON 4.2.98 WHICH WAS FOUND LEAKING RESULTING IN SHORTAGE FOUND.THE FOLLOWING IS THE EXCAT REPRODUCTION OF THE REMARKS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY DELIVERY BOOK "BOTTOM PIPELINE NEAR MASTER VALVE CRACKED, HENCE IT WAS LEAKING PROFUSELY." THE PRODUCT RECEIVED WERE 64660 LTRS OF SKO RESULTING A NET SHORTAGE OF 3140 LTRS AMOUNTING RS.22948/-.THE NOTICE WAS LODGED VIDE REGISTERED POST TO CCO (NER) DATED 30.6.98 AND SUBSEQUENTLY FILED IN RCT -LUCKNOW VIDE OC-0100065  05/Aug/2011  1-NO VALID NOTICE UNDER SEC.106 OF RLY ACT 1989 HAS BEEN SERVED TO G.M./N.RLY. 2-ALL THE SEAL WERE FOUND INTECT AT DESTINATION. 3-WAGON RECHED WITHIN NORMAL TRANSIT PERIOD ON 04/02/98.WHATSOEVER LODED IN WHATEVER CONDITION AT FORWARDING STATION THE SAME WAS BROUGHT DOWN TO THE DESTINATION AND DELIVERED TO PARTY.AS SUCH RAILWAY IS NOT LAIBLE.  03/Aug/2011  No  No  No  No
 35  OC/94/2003  2030301733 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  92933  NR  Case Settled by RCT GORAKHPUR on 06-SEP-11 in favour of Party  THE MATTER WAS TAKEN UP WITH CME (FUEL) VIDE OUR LETTERS DATED 05.12.03,27.1.04,11.3.04,20.5.04,& 3.8.2004.SINCE THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE RLYS THE MATTER WAS TAKEN UP AT RCT-GORAKPUR  05/Aug/2011  THE SUBJECT WAGON NO.ER 60055 CONTAING HSD HAS BEEN DECANTED BY LF/LKO ON 08/10/90.M/S HPCL HAS BEEN ASKED TO GET IN TOUCH WITH CME/FUEL TO GET COVER SUPLLY ORDER.NOW NO RECORD IS AVILABLE AT THIS STAGE.  03/Aug/2011  No  No  No  No
 36  OA/69/1999  2030301735 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  59224  NR  HC/DLI  IOC BOOKED A CONSIGNMENT OF 7 WAGONS CONTAINING 468.20 KLS OF MS EX-BAJWA TO SSB. DURING TRANSIT WAGON NO.CR 47 BECAME FAULTY AND TRANSHIP TO WAGON NO. ER 35696. ON REACHING SSB OPEN DELIVERY WAS TAKEN AT SSB SITE BY BPC AND LOSS TO THE TUNE OF 3808 LTRS WAS FOUND AS PER JOINT DIP. COST 3808 LTRS IS RS.59,224. ACCORDINGLY NOTICE WAS SERVED ON 17.06.96 WHICH WAS ACKNOWLEDGED ON 20.06.96 WHICH RAILWAY REPUDIATED. OC NO.69/99 FILED BEFORE RCT-DELHI WAS DISMISSED ON 06.03.09 ON THE GROUND THAT CLAIMANT FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE TOP AND BOOTOM SEALS OF TRANSHIPPED WAGONS WERE NOT INTACT AND THE PRODUCT, DURING THE TRANSIFER, WAS NOT TEMPERED WITH. HENCE APPEAL NO.165/10 WAS FILED BEFORE DELHI HIGH COURT FROM WHERE MATTER HAS BEEN REFERRED TO JIDRP. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE IOC THAT THE LOSS HAS OCCURED AT THE TIME OF TRANSHIPMENT BUT THE CASE IS THAT THE LOSS HAS BEEN OCCURED WHEN THE GOODS WERE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE RAILWAYS.  14/Jul/2011  APPLICATION IS NOT SIGNED VERFIED AND INSTITUTED BY A DULY AUTHORIZED PERSON .RAILWAY IS PROTECT U/S 93 F 94 AND 98 OF THE RAILWAY ACT .IT WAS DENIED THAT THE TRANSSHIPMENT FROM ONE WAGON TO THE OTHER WAS NOT DONE BY THE RESPONDENT BUT BY THE APPLICANT STAFF /ANY LOSS OCCURRED TO THE APPLICANT WAS DENIED AND STATED THE TRANSSHIPPED WAGON REACHED AT DESTINATION WITH SAEL INTECT TOP AND BOTTOM AND NO REMARKS OF LEAKING HENCE RAILWAY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LOSS/SHORTAGE .  23/Mar/2011  No  No  No  No
 37  OA/311/2001  2030301743 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  256652  NR  Case Settled by RCT DELHI on 20-MAY-14 in favour of Party  T/W NO WR48360 LOADED WITH 39890 LTS OF HSD FROM KANDLA TO SHAKURBASTI UNDER RR 504200 DT 16.7.1995 WAS NOT RECEIVED AT SHAKURBASTI.THE CHIEF GOODS OFFICER SIGNED THE NON DELIVERY CERTIFICATE ON 18.12.95 WITH AN ENDORSEMENT THAT THE T/W WAS NOT RECEIVED AT SKB AS PER RECORDS VERIFIED.IT IS WRONG TO STATE THAT THE CONSIGNMENT WAS DELIVERED TO HPCL UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT ON 23.8.95 WHEN THE NDC IS DATED 18.12.95  22/Jul/2010   THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED FROM KANDLA TO SSB CONTAINING 39890 LITERS ON 16/07/95. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPLICANT OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES, WHEREAS THE RECORD OF INVOICE NO-1060 HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO THE REPRASENTATIVE OF HPC. AND AS SUCH THE CLAIM IS FALSE.THE TANK WAGONN.WR48360 WAS RECEIVED AT SSB ON 23/8/95 AT 3.35HRS. AND PLACEDIN HPCL SIDING AT 17.30HRS. AND DECANTED 14.30HRS.ON THE SAME DAY AND DATE. THE TANK WAGON IN QUESTION WAS DELIVERED UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE.THE DATE OF BOOKING OF CONSIGNMENT IS 16.7.95 AND THE DATE OF FILING OF CLAIM IS 23.6.99 AS THE DELAY ADMITTEDBY THE APPLICANT IS ABOUT 11 MONTHS.THERE ARE NO REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIED GROUND AND THE APPLICATION IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED  19/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 38  OA/1066/1998  2030301770 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  65943  NR  Case Settled by RCT GORAKHPUR on 29-NOV-11 in favour of Party  IOC VIDE RR 714892 DATED 25/29.08.95 BOOKED A RAKE OF 9 TWS OF HSD EX-BGB TO SFB. OUT OF SAID TWS, INITIALLY 6 TANK WAGONS WERE NOT DELIVERED HENCE CLAIM WORTH RS.15,09,657.00 WAS FILED BEFORE RCT-GORAKHPUR. LATERON TWS DELIVERED AND ONE TW BEARING NO.CR42595 RECEIVED AT SHAKURBASTI AS UNCONNECTED AS LATE AS ON 28.09.96 WHEN TOP & BOTOOM SEALS WERE FOUND MISSING AND MAINHOLE COVER WAS ALSO FOUND IN OPEN CONDITION PROVING THAT SOME TAMPERING WAS COMMITTED ENROUTE. IN JOINT DIP, 118.3 CM AGAINST 193 CM DIP WAS REPORTED. ACCORDINGLY, CLAIM WAS REVISED TO SHORTAGE OF 10010 LITRES OF HSD WORTH RS.65,943.00. MANDATORY NOTICE WAS ALSO SERVED. FURTHER, AT ALL THE LOADING LOCATIONS, PAID RAILWAY STAFF ARE POSTED TO SUPERVISE THE LOADING. AT LOADING LOCATION, IN CASE ANY LEAKAGE/DEFECT, BEFORE OR AFTER LOADING, IS NOTICED IN ANY TW, RAILWAY STAFF ISSUES MEMO IN THIS REGARD AND DETAIN THE DEFECTIVE TW. HENCE RAILWAYS ARE LIABLE TO MAKE GOOD OF THE LOSS.  14/Oct/2011  LOADING AND UNLOADIG IS DONE BY OWNER AT THIER SIDING AND SAME WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY. THERE IS NO SIGN OF LEAKAGE FOUND IN JDC. THE PACKING CONDITIION AS APPLICABLE IN COMMDTY WAS NOT FULFILLED BY THE OWNER.  03/Oct/2011  No  No  No  No
 39  OA/102/1996  2030301810 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  115308  NR  HC/DLI  IOCL HAS BOOKED 19 TANK WAGON FROM MATHURA TO SSB VIDE RR. NO 800402 DATED 7.3.1993. OUT OF SAID CONSIGNMENT ONE TANK WAGON NO. NR-74064 CONTAINING 22260 LTRS OF FO DESPATCHED FROM MATHURA TO SSB NOT DELIVERED AT SSB AND NON DELIVERY CERTIFICATE ISSUED WAS ISSUED BY RLYS. ON 8.5.1993. COST 22260 LTRS OF FO AT THE RATRE OF RS.5180.06 PER KL IS RS.1,15,308.THE CLAIM HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE RCT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 16.10.2008 HAS DIRECTED THAT TANK WAGON NO. NR-74064 SHOULD BE ADJUSTED WITH UNCONNECTED TANK WAGON NO.ER-93189. IT IS SUBMITED THAT THERE IS NO SUCH PROVISION UNDER THE RLYS. ACT FOR SUCH ADJUSTMENT. FURTHER NO OIL COMPANIES HAVE AGREED TO SUCH ADJUSTMENT. THE VALID CLAIM OF IOC HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY CITING THE ABOVE. HENCE PRESENT APPEAL IS BY IOC  14/Jul/2011  IT WAS STATED THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SUFFERED ANY LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGEDNON DELIVERYOF TANK WAGON.THE APPLICANT HAS DECANTED AND CONSUMED SEVERAL TANK WAGON CONTAINING DIFFERENT TYPE OF OIL I.E.PETROLEUM AND OTHER INFLAMMABLE LIQUIDS INCLUDING FO [FURNANCE OIL]ASUNCONNCETED NOT PERTAINING TO IT. THATWHEN EVER THE RAILWAY ADNM IS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE UNCONNECTED TANK WAGONS LOADED WITH PETROLEUM OTHER INFLAMMABLE LIQUIDS IT CAN NOT DETAIN THE LOADED WAGONSCONTAINING OIL BEING HIGHLY INFLAMMABLE AND IS BOUND TO DELIVER IMMEDIATELY TO THE AVAILABLE OIL COMPANY AS UNCONNECTED.IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS ADMITTEDCONFIRM BY THE OFFICIAL OF THE APPLICANT ON 30/5/01. ONE OF THE TANK WAGON NUMBER 938189 CANTANINING FO NOT BELONGING TO IT WAS ALSO DECANTED AND CONSUENED BY THEAPPLICANT ON 30/3/93.AS UNCONNECTED TANK WAGON INTHEIR OWN SIDING AT SSB DESTINATION STATION WHERETHE SAID WAGON WAS PLACED BY THE RESPONDENT. THAT NEITHER ANY ADJUSTMENT NOR ANY PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE TO THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE DECANTATION AND CONSUMPTION OF THE SAID TANK WAGION BY THE APPLICANT.  22/Nov/2010  No  No  No  No
 40  OA/203/1997  2030301834 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  67790  NR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT DELHI on 19-OCT-10 in favour of Party  TANK NO. CR 46720 WAS DISPATCHED EX BJU FOR SHAKURBASTI ON 30.6.1994 UNDER RR NO. 670288. TANK WAGON WAS RECEIVED WITHOUT TOP AND BOTTOM SEALS, MANHOLE COVER OPEN AND BOTTOM FLANGE OPEN. JOINT DIP WAS TAKEN IN PRESENCE OF RAILWAY STAFF ON 10.7.1994 AND THEREAFTER TANK WAGON WAS DECANTED. A CLAIM FOR LOSS OF 10807 LITRES OF LDO AMOUNTING TO RS.67790/- WAS LODGED VIDE CLAIM NO. SSB/96/94 DATED 28.11.1994. THE HON¿BLE RCT HAD DECIDED THE CASE IN FAVOUR OF IOC AND HAD DIRECTED RAILWAYS FOR THE PAYMENT OF RS.67790/- ALONGWITH INTEREST. THE RESPONDENTS, I.E. RAILWAYS CHOSE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY RCT. THE CASE WAS DECIDED BY RCT IN LINE WITH THE RAILWAYS CIRCULAR. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, IT IS REQUESTED THAT IOC SHOULD BE COMPENSATED FOR RS.67790/- ALONGWITH INTEREST.  13/Sep/2010  THE CLAIM PETETION HAS NOT BEEN SINGED VEREFIED AND FILED BY THE DULY AUTHORISED PERSON.THE NOTICE U/S 106 OF THE RAILWAY ACT IS NOT AS PER THE STATUTORY REQUERMENT.IT IS A CASE OF SHORT DELIVERY. THAT RR WAS ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE CONSIGNOR WITH THE REMARKS THAT LOADING,DIPPING, WEIGHMENT & SEALING NOT SUPERVISED BY THE RLY STAFF. THE RAILWAY OFFERED THE CONSIGNMENT TO THE APPLICANT AT THE DESTINATION IN THE SAMTE CONDITION IN WHICH IT WAS LOADED.TANK WAGON ARRIVED AT SHAKURBASTI ON 09/07/94 AT 13 HRS AND WAS PLACED ON THEIR SIDING WITHO2UT ANY PROTEST. THERE WAS NO SIGN OF LEAKAGE. ON 10/07/94 AT 8 HRS, THEY REQUEST FOR JOINT DIP. THE WAGON REMAIN IN THEIR CUSTODY FOR ABOUT 22HRS AND THE LIABILITY OF THE RESPONDENT SEIZED AFTER THE TERMINATION OF TRANSIT RULE 1990.  22/Feb/2010  No  No  No  No
 41  OA/166/1997  2030301839 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  149815  NR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT DELHI on 01-OCT-10 in favour of Party  IOC HAD BOOKED 10 TWS LDO EX IOC BJU TO IOC SSB VIDE RR NO. B670211 DATED 23.5.1994. 1 TW NO.CR 43754 WAS NOT DELIVERED ALONGWITH THE OTHER TANK WAGONS. NDC WAS ISSUED BY THE RAILWAYS AND CLAIM NO. SSB/1682/94 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.149815/-WAS LODGED. WHILE DECIDING THE CASE AGAINST IOC, THE HON¿BLE RCT HAS NOTED THAT ¿IT IS A STANDARD PRACTICE BETWEEN THE RAILWAYS AND OIL COMPANIES THAT SINCE POL PRODUCTS ARE DANGEROUS GOODS, ANY UNCONNECTED TANK WAGON LOADED WITH POL PRODUCTS IS PLACED TO THE NEAREST IOC/BPC/HPC SIDING FOR DECANTATION AND THE SAME IS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE MISSING TANK WAGONS DUE TO THAT OIL COMPANY IN THAT SIDING¿. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE RAILWAYS ACT FOR SUCH ADJUSTMENT. FURTHER, THE OIL COMPANIES HAVE NOT AGREED FOR SUCH ADJUSTMENTS. THE TRIBUNAL HAD IGNORED THE FACT THAT NON DELIVERY CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED BY THE RAILWAY AUTHORITIES. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT ONCE THE LOSS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, THE LD. TRIBUNAL CANNOT DIRECT ANY ADJUSTMENT AND IS LIABLE TO PASS A DECREE. THE LD. TRIBUNAL HAD GONE BEYOND THE PLEADINGS AND HAD DECIDED THE CASE NOT ON THE BASIS OF THE PLEADING AND EVIDENCE, BUT ON THE ASSUMPTION OF SOME SCHEME WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE NOR ANY CONSENT HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE CORPORATION. THE VALID CLAIM OF IOC WAS DISMISSED CITING THE ABOVE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PRODUCT IN THE TANK WAGON CR 43754 VESTED WITH IOC AND RAILWAYS AS A CARRIER ARE BOUND TO DELIVER THIS PRODUCT. SINCE THIS TW HAS NOT BEEN DELIVERED TO IOC, RAILWAYS SHOULD COMPENSATE IOC FOR RS.149815/- ALONGWITH INTEREST.  13/Sep/2010  THE CLAIM APPLCATION HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED VER IFIED AND FILED BY THE DULY AUTHORIZEED PERSON.IT IS A CASE OF NON-DELIVERY. THAT CLAIM NOTICE UNDER RLY. ACT IS NOT AS PER STATUTERY REQUIREMENTS..CLAIM FILED WITHOUT CLEARANCE FROM HIGH POWER COMMITTEE.T/W-CR-43754 CONTAINING LDO WAS PLACED IN HPC SIDING SHAKURBASTI ON 13-6-94 AND DECANTED BY HPC ON 15-6-94.ASPER STANDARD PRACTICE BETWEEN RAILWAYS AND OCT COMPANIES SINCE TANK WANGAN NO.CR43754 LODAD WITH LDO DUE TO IOC AT SHAKURBASTI WAS NOT DELIVEREDTHE SAME MAYBE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE UNCONNCCTED TANK WAGON NO.WR.43143 LOADED WITH LDO CROP BELONGING TO IOC AND DECANTED BY IOC AT THERE SHKUBASTI SIDING ON 19.05.1994. THAT NOTICE UNDER RLY ACT IS NOT AS PER STATUTERY REQUIRMENTS .  19/Feb/2010  No  No  No  No
 42  OA/24/1997  2030301852 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  235041  NR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT DELHI on 19-OCT-10 in favour of Party  THE LEGAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE ACTUAL QUANTITY OF CONSIGNMENT LOADED AT THE ORIGINATING STATION IS THE RR NO 004873,INV 405 DATED 30.1.1994 WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THE QTYS LOADED IN THE T/WS WR 906545,WR 906611 ,CR 1926129,CR 1926187 WHICH IS EXACTLY MATCHING AS PER THE JOINT DIP CERTIFCATE DULY ATTESTED BY RAILWAYS. WHEN THE SAID TANK WAGONS WERE PLACED AT HPC SIDING IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE TOP AND BOTTOM SEALS WERE MISSING AND MOTOR SPIRIT WAS LEAKING FROM BOTTOM VALVES.RAILWAYS WERE INFORMED TO STOP THE LEAK AND THEN A JOINT DIP CERTIFICATE DULY ATTESTED BY RAILWAYS WAS SIGNED WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THE SHORTAGES.SO THE RAILWAYS ARGUMENT THAT THE CONSIGNMENTS WERE HANDED OVER TO THE CONSINGNEE AT THE DESTINATION UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURES AS PER DELVERY BOOK IS NOT TENABLE  18/May/2010   THE CLAIM PETITION HAS NOT BEEN SINGED, VERIFIED AND FILED BY THE DULY AUTHORISED PERSON THE RAILWAY RECEIPT WAS ISUED TO THE CONSIGNORWITH THE REMARKS THAT 25 TANK WAGONS SAID TO CONTAIN MOTOR SPIRIT CLUBBED WITH INV NO 405 FOR T/LOAD PRODUCT WISE SHUNTING NOT REQUIRED AT DESTINATION TRAIN LOAD CONDITION FULFILLED. IT IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE. THAT THE RR WAS ISSUED ON SAID TO CONTAIN, SENDERS WEIGHT ACCEPTED ,LOADING IN IOC SIDING, LOADING NOT SUPERVISED BY RLY STAFF .AS THE CONSIGNMENT BEING A TRAIN LOAD CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED BY THE CONSIGNOR AT THEIR OWN SIDING WITHOUT ANY SUPERVISION OF THE RLY. STAFF.THE INFORMATION GIVEN ON FORWARDING NOTE WAS ACCEPTED AS CORRECT .  19/Feb/2010  No  No  No  No
 43  OA/204/1998  2030301871 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  115200  NR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT DELHI on 19-OCT-10 in favour of Party  5 TANK WAGONS OF FO WERE BOOKED AGAINST RR NO. 780874 DATED 20.6.1995. TW NO. WR ¿ 42253 CONTAINING 22050 LITRES FO WAS NOT DELIVERED AND RAILWAYS ISSUED NDC DATED 31.8.1995. IOC FILED A CLAIM ON 24.11.1995 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.115200/-. THE CASE WAS REFERRED TO RCT. RCT HAS ORDERED THAT AS PER THE EXTANT PROCEDURE AND PRACTICES AMONG THE RAILWAYS AND OIL COMPANIES, SINCE THE TANK WAGON NO. WR 42253 LOADED WITH FURNACE OIL DUE TO IOC AT SHAKURBASTI WAS NOT DELIVERED, THE SAME MAY BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE UNCONNECTED TANK WAGON NO. ER 99944 NOT BELONGING TO IOC BUT DECANTED BY IOC AT THEIR SHAKURBASTI ON 30.6.1995. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE RAILWAYS ACT FOR SUCH ADJUSTMENT. FURTHER, THE OIL COMPANIES HAVE NOT AGREED FOR SUCH ADJUSTMENTS. THE TRIBUNAL HAD IGNORED THE FACT THAT NON DELIVERY CERTIFICATE DATED 31.8.1995 WAS ISSUED BY THE RAILWAY AUTHORITIES. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT ONCE THE LOSS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, THE LD. TRIBUNAL CANNOT DIRECT ANY ADJUSTMENT AND IS LIABLE TO PASS A DECREE. THE LD. TRIBUNAL HAD GONE BEYOND THE PLEADINGS AND HAD DECIDED THE CASE NOT ON THE BASIS OF THE PLEADING AND EVIDENCE, BUT ON THE ASSUMPTION OF SOME SCHEME WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE NOR ANY CONSENT HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE CORPORATION. THE VALID CLAIM OF IOC WAS DISMISSED CITING THE ABOVE.  13/Sep/2010  IT IS A CASE OF ADJUSTMENT. ALONGWITH PRELIMINARY OBJECTION ,IT WAS ARGUED THAT CLAIMENT HAS NOT SUFFERED ANY LOSS ,IT WAS SPECIFICALLY DENIED THAT ONE WAGON BEARING NO. WR 42253 WAS NOT RECEIVED AT THE DESTINATION ,THE APPLICANT HAVE ADDMITTED THE DECANTATION AND CONSUMPTION OF SEVERAL TANK WAGONS CONTAINING DIFFERENT TYPES OF OILS INCLUDING FURNACE OIL AT ITS SIDING AT IOC/SSB.  19/Feb/2010  No  No  No  No
 44  OA/171/1999  2030301907 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  150161  NR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT DELHI on 19-OCT-10 in favour of Party  A CONSIGNMENT OF LDO WAS BOOKED EX LUMDING TO SHAKURBASTI AGAINST RR NO. 551123 DATED 3.6.1996. WAGON NO. SE 28422 CONTAINING 23590 LITRES LDO WAS NOT DELIVERED AND RAILWAYS ISSUED NDC 25.8.1996. IOC FILED A CLAIM ON 13.11.1996 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.150161/-. THE CASE WAS REFERRED TO RCT. WHILE GIVING THE JUDGMENT, THE LD. RCT HAS RECORDED THAT THERE IS A JOINT MACHINERY OF THE RAILWAYS AND THE OIL INDUSTRY WHERE ADJUSTMENTS OF THE MISSING TANK WAGONS AGAINST THE UNCONNECTED TANK WAGONS, KEEP ON TAKING PLACE. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER RECORDED THAT SINCE IOC HAD CONSUMED LDO LOADED IN TW NO. SE 29115 WHICH WAS NOT MEANT FOR THEM, IT CAN BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE MISSING TW SE 28422. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE RAILWAYS ACT FOR SUCH ADJUSTMENT. FURTHER, THE OIL COMPANIES HAVE NOT AGREED FOR SUCH ADJUSTMENTS. THE TRIBUNAL HAD IGNORED THE FACT THAT NON DELIVERY CERTIFICATE DATED 25.8.1996 WAS ISSUED BY THE RAILWAY AUTHORITIES. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT ONCE THE LOSS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, THE LD. TRIBUNAL CANNOT DIRECT ANY ADJUSTMENT AND IS LIABLE TO PASS A DECREE. THE LD. TRIBUNAL HAD GONE BEYOND THE PLEADINGS AND HAD DECIDED THE CASE NOT ON THE BASIS OF THE PLEADING AND EVIDENCE, BUT ON THE ASSUMPTION OF SOME SCHEME WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE NOR ANY CONSENT HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE CORPORATION. THE VALID CLAIM OF IOC WAS DISMISSED CITING THE ABOVE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PRODUCT IN THE TANK WAGON SE 28422 VESTED WITH IOC AND RAILWAYS AS A CARRIER ARE BOUND TO DELIVER THIS PRODUCT. SINCE THIS TW HAS NOT BEEN DELIVERED TO IOC, RAILWAYS SHOULD COMPENSATE IOC FOR RS.150161/- ALONGWITH INTEREST.  13/Sep/2010  THE RAILWAY IS PROTECTED UNDER SECTION 93F,94 AND 98 OF THE RAILWAYS ACT.THE TANK WAGON WAS PROVIDED TO THE PARTY FOR LOADING AT THEIR SIDING . LOADING WAS DONE BY THE SENDER. NEITHER LOADING WAS SUPERVISED NOR CONTENTS AND QUANTITY WAS CHECKED BY THE RLY. STAFF.TOP AND BOTTAM SEAL WAS PROVIDED BY THE PARTY, HENCE CONSIGNMENT BOOKED AT OWNER RISK AND SAID TO CONTAIN RR WAS ISSUED . THE TANK WAGON SE 26422 REACHED IN TRANSHIPPED WAGON SE 29115 AND DECANTED BY THE CLAIMENT ON 28/12/96 AS PER THE CONSUMPTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE APPLICANT. HENCE THE CLAIM OF THE APPLICANT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.  19/Feb/2010  No  No  No  No
 45  OC/31/1999  2030302076 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  399083  NR  HC/ALD  RAILWAY BOARD VIDE THEIR LETTER NO82/TCIII/56 DATED 28.4.92 HAVE STATED THAT CLAIMS OF THE OIL COMPANIES SHOULD NOT BE REPUDIATED ON THE GROUND OF SUIT-BAR. SIMILAR INSTRUCTIONS WERE ALSO ISSUED BY NORTHERN RAILWAY VIDE THEIR LETTER NO.18/CCO/CC/83/84DTD.15/18.9.1984 AND BY RAILWAY BOARD VIDE THEIR LETTER NO.89/TC III/49/2/TC-III/40/SUIT BAR DATED 28/30.10.2002. IN VIEW OF ABOVE GUIDELINES, HPC TRIED TO SETTLE THE CLAIM WITH RAILWAYS, WITHOUT RESORTING TO LITIGATION, AND FILED A SUIT BEFORE THE RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL ONLY AFTER SUCH EFFORTS PROVED FUTILE. AFTER THIS NON DELIVERY CERTIFICATE FOR PRODUCT MS 1N THE T/W NO.WR-40848 WAS ISSUED BY NR, MORADABAD VIDE THEIR LETTER NO.32/2/W/CGS-MB/9/93 DT. 14.09.93. THAN, VARANASI RAILWAYS VIDE THEIR LETTER OA/18/8608/93 DATED 08.07.94 ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE SAID TANK WAGONWAS DECANTED ON 28.08.93 BY LOCO FOREMEN MOARDABAD AND ADVISED TO PUT FORWARD THE CALIM AT NORTHERN RAILWAY, NEW DELHI. HOWEVER NORTHERN RAILWAY, BARODA HOUSE VIDE LETTER NO.27T/44FA/1/HSD/DIV16 DT. 16.01.96 STATED THAT THEY HAD DECANTED 24310 LTS OF HSD INSTEAD OF 27190 LTS OF MS AND THEREFORE RETURNED OUR DEBIT STATEMENT NO.469 STATING THAT THE SAME CANNOT BE VERIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER WAS REFERRED BACK TO CCO, NR, VARANASI VIDE OUR LETTER 0469/RC DATED 24.07.96 REQUESTING TO ADVISE THE CORRECT DECANTATION OF OUR CLAIMED T/W AND PROVIDE US LIABILITY LETTER, FURTHER A REMINDER LETTER 0469/RC DT. 04.06.97 WAS SENT TO NR, VARANASI REQUESTING TO ISSUE THE LIABILITY LETTER UPON FAILURE OF WHICH WE WOULD HAVE TO FILE OUR CLALIM WITH RCT.  21/Jul/2010  THAT NO SUFFICIENT GROUNDS HAS BEEN SHOWN DOR CONDONING THE DELAY AND THAT PROVISION OF LIMITATION ACT WHERE NOT APPLICABLE AFTER COMING INTO FORCE OF RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL ACT 1987 . THE APPLICATION IS LIABLE TO DISMISSED.  15/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 46  OA/431/2000  2030302128 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  203842  NR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT DELHI on 09-FEB-11 in favour of Party  IOC HAD BOOKED 12 TWS LDO EX IOC NJP TO IOC SSB. 3 TWS WERE NOT DELIVERED ALONGWITH THE OTHER TANK WAGONS. NDC WAS ISSUED BY THE RAILWAYS AND CLAIM NO. SSB/1824/97 DATED 1.3.1998 WAS LODGED. THEREAFTER, 2 TWS WERE TRACED AND DELIVERY WAS GIVEN. TW CR 43701 CONTAINING 23590 LITRES LDO WAS NOT DELIVERED. THE VALUE OF THE CLAIM WAS ACCORDINGLY REDUCED TO RS.203842/-. SINCE THE CLAIM WAS NOT SETTLED BY NORTHERN RAILWAYS, THE CLAIM WAS FILED IN RCT. RCT HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM ON THE BASIS THAT IOC HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE SERVICE OF NOTICE WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME FRAME OF SIX MONTHS. AFTER RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE, THE RAILWAYS, VIDE THEIR LETTER REFERENCE POL.3.SSB.93558.2.98 DATED 27.9.2000, WITH REFERENCE OF IOC CLAIM AS SSB/1824/97 DATED 10.2.1998, HAD ADVISED IOC THAT TW CR 43701 HAD DE-RAILED AND REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE DGS&D RATES. THE CLAIM STATUS HAS BEEN UPLOADED BY NORTHERN RAILWAYS ON THE WEBSITE CLAIMS.INDIANRAIL.GOV.IN. THIS CLAIM HAS BEEN UPLOADED AGAINST CLAIM NO. 1039355898 WITH CLAIM RECEIVED DATE AS 17.2.1998. CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE CLAIM WAS RECEIVED BY THE RAILWAYS WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. SINCE THE TW WAS NOT DELIVERED AND THE CLAIM WAS FILED WELL WITHIN THE LIMITATION PERIOD, THE AMOUNT OF RS.203842/- ALONGWITH INTEREST SHOULD BE PAID TO IOC.  13/Sep/2010  IT IS A CASE OF NON-DELIVERY.THAT NO LEGAL AND VALID NOTICE U/S 106 OF THE RLY. ACT WAS SERVED UPON THE RESPONDENT. THE TANK WAGON CR 43701 WAS INVOLVED IN ACCIDENT AT CHAPRA STATION WHICH WAS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE RESPONDENT,HENCE THE RESPONDENT IS PROTECTED UNDER SECTION 93[I]OF RLY. ACT,THE APPLICATION IS NOT SIGNED,VERIFIED AND FILED BY THE DULY AUTHORISED PERSON. THE TANK WAGON WAS PROVIDED TO THE PARTY FOR LOADING AT THEIR SIDING IN SOUND CONDITION. AS PER THE REMARKS ON THE RR LOADING, SEALING,DIP MEASUREMENT DONE BY THE STAFF NOT WITNESSED BY THE RLY. STAFF. .  19/Feb/2010  No  No  No  No
 47  OA/398/1998  2030302131 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  317009  NR  HC/DLI  IOCL HAS FILED A PETITION CLAIMING THE COST OF SHORT-DELIVERY OF 20383 LTS OF MS COSTING RS.3,17,009 @ RS.15552 PER KL.BOOKED AGAINST THE RR 026358 DT. 8.9.95 FROM BAJWA TO SHAKURBASTI THE CASE IN BRIEF IS THAT IOCL HAS BOOKED 11 TANK WAGON OUT WHICH TWO TANK WAGON CONTAINING 67200 AND 67200 LTS OF MS SHORT BY 11359 AND 9024 LTS RESPECTIVELY AND SHORT DELIVERY CERTIFICATE ALSO ISSUED ON 17.11.95. THEREAFTER, A NOTICE DATED 10.01.96 CLAIMING THE CLAIM OF COMPENSATION ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT-DELIVERY OF THE TWO TANK WAGON WAS LODGED BY THE CORPORATION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT. CLAIM AMOUNT FOR THE LOSS SUFFERED IS RS 3,17,009/-WHICH WAS LATER DISMISSED BY RCT ON 06.03.09. HENCE THIS APPEAL BY IOC.  14/Jul/2011  THAT THE RESPONDENT IS PROTECTED U/S 93 (F)OF THE RAILWAY ACT .IT WAS STATED THAT THE LOSS OF ANY CAUSED TO THE CONSIGNEE HAS OCCURED DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE CONSIGNOR/SENDER .IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE TANK WAGON HAVING NO TOP AND BOTTOM SEAL CANNOT CAUSE ANY LEAKAGE AND UNLESS OTHER FACTORS OF THE TANK WAGON ARE TEMPERED /DISTURBED .THE LOADING DIPPING WEIGHMENT AND SEALING OF THE CONSIGNMENT WAS NOT DONE OR SUPERVISED BY THE RLY STAFF .THAT THE CONSIGNOR /IT STAFF INTENTIONALLY VIOLATED THE RLY RULES WITH MALAFIDE INTENTION REGARDING THE LOADING AND SEALING OF THE SUBJECT TANK WAGON. THAT WHATEVER WAS LOADED BY THE CONSIGNOR /ITS STAFF AT THE FORWARDING STATION WITHOUT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE RLY STAFF WAS DELIVERED TO THE CONSIGNEE AT THE DESTINATION STATION .THE RLY EXERCISED DUE CARE AND ATTENTION WHILE HANDLING TANK WAGON CONTAINING THE CONSIGNMENT IN THE TRANSIT OR EVEN OTHERWISE .THE RESPONDENT IS NOT LIABLE TO MAKE ANY COMPENSATION TO THE APPLICANT AS NO LOSS CAUSED DUE TO ANY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENT  07/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 48  TA/833/1997  2030302143 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  114146  NR  Case Settled by RCT GHAZIABAD on 02-JUN-06 in favour of Party  TOA NO 073251,COPY OF THE INVENTORY ENTRY ,RR 580502 DT 7.9.91 AND PARTIAL DELIVERY CERTIFICATE ARE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS WHICH CLEARLY SHOW NON RECEIPT OF T/W NO CR102389 CONTAINING 24310 LTS OF HSD AMOUNTING TO RS 114146.EVEN AFTER 19 YEARS RLYS HAS NOT TRACED THE ABOVE MENTIONED T/W OR GIVEN ITS PROOF OF CONSUMPTION.THE FACT OF THE CASE BEING THAT AFTER LOADING AND HANDLING OVER OF THE T/ES THE RLYS ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR LOSS OF GOODS,HANDED OVER TO THEM DURING PHYSICAL POSSESSION AND TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS ,UPTO PEACEFUL DELIVERY TO THE APPELLANT IN EITHER CONDITION.  22/Jul/2010   BOOKING PARTICULARS AS MENTIONED IN THE RR WERE ADMITTED AND REST OF THE ALLIGATION WERE DENIED. IT WAS STATED THAT THE CONSIGNMENT IN QUESTION WAS LOADED FROM THE PRIVATE SIDING OF THE CONSIGNOR AND THE SAME WAS DELIVERED TO THE PRIVATE SIDING OF THE CONSIGNEE AND THAT THE SAME WAS BOOKED UNDER L, CONDITION AND SAID TO CONTAIN BASIS AND THAT THERE WAS NO NEGLIANCE AND CARELESSNESS ON THE PART OFTHE RESPODENT IN HANDLING THE CONSIGNMENT IN QUESTION AND THAT WHATEVER WAS LOADED WAS DELIVERED AT DESTINATION WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE ENROUT. ON THERE GROUND THE CLAIM APPLICATION WAS SOUGHT TO BE DISMISSED.  15/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 49  OA/119/2003  2030302432 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  277919  NR  HC/ALD  RAILWAY BOARD VIDE THEIR LETTER NO82/TCIII/56 DATED 28.4.92 HAVE STATED THAT CLAIMS OF THE OIL COMPANIES SHOULD NOT BE REPUDIATED ON THE GROUND OF SUIT-BAR. SIMILAR INSTRUCTIONS WERE ALSO ISSUED BY NORTHERN RAILWAY VIDE THEIR LETTER NO.18/CCO/CC/83/84DTD.15/18.9.1984 AND BY RAILWAY BOARD VIDE THEIR LETTER NO.89/TC III/49/2/TC-III/40/SUIT BAR DATED 28/30.10.2002. IN VIEW OF ABOVE GUIDELINES, HPC TRIED TO SETTLE THE CLAIM WITH RAILWAYS, WITHOUT RESORTING TO LITIGATION, AND FILED A SUIT BEFORE THE RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL ONLY AFTER SUCH EFFORTS PROVED FUTILE. T/W NO.CR-46775 7 SR-10510 CONTAINING 48740 LTRS OF HSD WERE BOOKED FROM KANDLA TO SAHARANPUR VIDE RR NO.C-271625 INV.NO.14 DT.17.5.93. THE SAID T/W WERE NOT RECEIVED AT THE DESTINATION STATION I.E. SAHARANPUR, CLAIM WAS LODGED WITH CCO, NORTHERN RAILWAY VIDE NOTICE DT.28.9.93, RECEIPT OF WHICH WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BY RAILWAYS VIDE LETTER CP/CD/SRE/02/15282/10/93 DT.18.10.93. THEN, CONSUMPTION CERTIFICATE DT.7.1.94 WAS ISSUED BY RAILWAY STATING THAT BOTH T/W WERE CONSUMED BY LOCO FOREMEN, NR, BATHINDA, HENCE, SUPPLY ORDER FOR THE VALUE OF THE SAID PRODUCT WAS SENT TO GM 9OPERATING0. AFTER SEVERAL REMINDERS DT. 8.8.94, 27.1.95, AND 27.11.95 CCO, NR AGAIN ASKED FOR ORIGINAL NOTICE OF THE CLAIM U/S 106 OF RAILWAY ACT, 1989 AND THE SAME WAS AGAIN SENT TO RAILWAYS ON 23.4.96. AFTER THIS, THE LIABILITY FOR THE SAID PRODUCT CONSUMED WAS ACCEPTED BY RAILLWAYS VIDE LETTER NO. CD/9/SRE/9708-10-93DT 24.4.96. BUT INSPITE OF THIS, NO PAYMENT WAS MADE BY RAILWAYS.  26/Jul/2010   THAT NO SUFFICIANT GROUND HAS BEEN SHOWN FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND THE PROVISION OF LIMITATION ACT WERE NOT APPLICABLE AFTER COMING INTO FORCE OF RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL ACT 1989, RESPODENT SOUGHT DISMISSING OF THE APPLICATION.  13/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 50  OC/34/2003  2030302514 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  76671  NR  RCT/LKO  THE TANK WAGON NOS.NF-91175 & SR-41692 WERE SHIPPED EX MATHURA TO AMOUSI IRD AGAINST RR NO.C-659739, INV.NO.73 DT. 28.6.2001 CONTAINING 66240 & 67200 LTRS OF ULPON ACCOUNT OF HPCL. AS PER JDC, SAID T/WS RECEIVED AT DESTINATION ON 29.6.2001 AND IT WAS REPORTED THAT TOP SEALS BOTH MISSING, BOTTOM SEALS BOTH MISSING, TOP VALVE OPEN, MANHOLE COVER NUT BOLT FOUND OPEN AND LEAKAGE FROM BOTTOM PIPELINE.AGAINST SHIPPING DIP OF 256.4 CMS & 258.1 CMS THE DIP RECEIVED WAS 248.0CMS. & 249.6 CMS RESULTING A NET SHORTAGE OF 1591 & 1635 LTRS (TOTAL 3226 LTRS) OF ULP AMOUNTING RS.76671/-.  04/Aug/2011  NO DELAY IN TRANSIT,LOADING & SEALING DONE BY OWENER IN HIS SIDING.HOWEVER THIS CASE HAS BEEN DISMISSED ON 09/08/04 THEREFORE RAILWAY IS NOT LAIBLE FOR PAYMENT.  03/Aug/2011  No  No  No  No
 51  OC/33/2003  2030302528 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  26349  NR  Case Settled by RCT LUCKNOW on 06-SEP-11 in favour of Party  THE TANK WAGON NO.NF-91215 WAS SHIPPED EX MATHURA TO AMOUSI IRD AGAINST RR NO.C-659746, INV.NO.80 DT.28.6.2001 CONTAINING 65160 LTRS OF HSD ON ACCOUNT OF HPCL. AS PER JDC, SAID T/W RECEIVED AT DESTINATION ON 29.6.2001 AND WAS FOUND TOP SEALS BOTH MISSING, BOTTOM SEALS BOTH MISSING, TOP VALVE OPEN, MANHOLE COVER NUT BOLT FOUND OPEN AND LEAKING FROM BOTTOM PIPELINE.AGAINST SHIPPING DIP OF 250.5 CMS THE DIP RECEIVED WAS 242.8 CMS. RESULTING A NET SHORTAGE OF 1760 LTRS OF HSD AMOUNTING RS.26349/-  04/Aug/2011  1-THE LOADING SEALING AND VALVE TIGHTENING IS NOT CHECKED BY RAILWAY STAFF AS PER RAILWAY RECEPT. 2-WAGON RECHED ON 29/06/2001 WITHIN NORMAL TRANSIT PERIOD. 3-THE LEAKAGE FROM BOTTOM PIPELINE IS ADMISSIBLE ONLY WHEN VALVE ARE NOT PROPERLY TIGHTEND BY REFINARY STAFF.AS SUCH RAILWAY IS NOT LAIBLE.  03/Aug/2011  No  No  No  No
 52  OC/355/1996  2030302630 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  42596  NR  RCT/LKO  IOC VIDE RR 271889 DATED 04.06.93 BOOKED A RAKE CONTAINING MS EX-KRIR TO MEERUT. OUT OF SAID RAKE, TW NO.SR41637 CONTAINING 67200 LITRES WITH DIP OF 258.1 CM WAS FOUND LEAKING AT DESTINATION LOCATION RESULTING INTO LOSS OF 2925 LITRES OF MS WORTH RS.42596.00. IN JOINT DIP DATED 09.06.93, TOP & BOTTOM SEALS WERE FOUND MISSING PROVING THAT SOME TAMPERING WAS COMMITTED ENROUTE. FURTHER, AT ALL THE LOADING LOCATIONS, PAID RAILWAY STAFF ARE POSTED TO SUPERVISE THE LOADING. AT LOADING LOCATION, IN CASE ANY LEAKAGE/DEFECT, BEFORE OR AFTER LOADING, IS NOTICED IN ANY TW, RAILWAY STAFF ISSUES MEMO IN THIS REGARD AND DETAIN THE DEFECTIVE TW. HENCE RAILWAYS ARE LIABLE TO MAKE GOOD OF THE LOSS. MANDATORY NOTICE DATED 18.11.93 WAS ALSO SERVED BUT OF NO AVAIL.  13/Oct/2011  LOADING & UNLOADING IS DONE BY OWNER AT THEIR PRIVATE SIDING AND SAME WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY.THERE IS NO DELAY IN ROUTE. THOUGH THE SOME OF THE SEAL WERE MISSING BUT NO SIGN OF LEAKAGE FOUND AT THE TIME OF JOINT DIP.  29/Aug/2011  No  No  No  No
 53  OC/274/1996  2030303095 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  51649  NR  Case Settled by RCT LUCKNOW on 21-MAR-07 in favour of Party  TANK WAGON NO.SR-19735 WAS BOOKED EX KOYALI TO BAREILLY AGAINST RR NO.422991, INV. NO.209 DT.4.5.93 CONTAINING 27080 LTRS OF MS ON ACCOUNT OF HPCL. AS PER THE JDC, SAID T/W WAS RECEIVED AT THE DESTINATION ON 29.9.93 WITHOUT TOP & BOTTOM SEALS AND AGAINST SHIPPING DIP OF 212.5 CMS THE DIP RECEIVED WAS 181.3 CMS RESULTING A NET SHORTAGE OF 3514 LTRS AMOUNTING RS.51469/-.AFTER OUR REPEATED REQUESTS TO RAILWAYS DT. 21.10.93,16.11.93,16.9.94,14.12.94,7.6.95,12.10.95,17.11.95,14.12.95 & 26.395, THE MATTER TAKEN UP AT RCT.  04/Aug/2011  1-LOADING AND SEALING AND JOIT DIP MESERMENT IS NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY. HOWEVER THIS CASE IS DISMISSED ON THE LATCHES OF PARTY BY RCT/LKO ON 21/03/07 THEREFORE RAILWAY IS NOT LAIBLE FOR PAYMENT.  03/Aug/2011  No  No  No  No
 54  OA/25/2004  2030400165 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  266299  NR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH on 04-FEB-15 in favour of Party  6/ PER ANNUM . AN APPEAL FILED BY RAILWAY ADMINSTRATION BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT CDG AGAINST THE RCT/CDG ORDER  08/Jun/2010  PERSENT CLAIM OF WAGON NO-101588 IS TIME BARD ASPER SECTION 17-1 A OF RCT ACT, CLAIM APPLICATION NOT FILED SIGNED VERIFIED BY THE COMPETENT AND DULY AUTHORISED PERSON  12/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 55  OC/143/2003  2030400193 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  145765  NR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT DELHI on 01-OCT-10 in favour of Party  LEAKING OF MS FROM BOTTOM VALUE ,TOP VALVE NOT PROPERLY CLOSED AND SEALED¿ ARE TWO SEPARATE STAMENTS.NON SEALING /IMPROPER SEALING DOESNOT AUTOMATICALLY LEAD TO LEAKAGE FROM THE BOTTOM VALUE. RULE NO 11016 & 11017 OF THE NORTHERN RAILWAY OPERATING MANUAL MANDATES THAT T/WS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO MOVE BY RAILWAYS IN LEAKING CONDITONS.IN THE PRESENT CASE T/W WAS PLACED AT HPCL¿S SISING IN ALEAKING CONDITION AND NO INTIMATION WAS GIVEN TO HPCL AT THE TIME OF PLACEMENT OF SUBJECT T/W..ALSO AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE DUTY OFFICER AT THE LOADING STATION CLEARLY MENTIONS THAT ¿ON COMPLETION OF LOADING THE RAILWAY TRAIN EXAMINER (TXR) HAD EXAMINED THE VALVES AND FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO LEAKAGE FROM ANYWHERE AND THEN ONLY THE T/W WAS ALOWED BY HIM TO BE REMOVED FROM SIDING.¿  18/May/2010   THE PRESENT CLAIM PETETION HAS NOT BEEN SINGED VERIFIED AND INSTITUTED BY DULY AUTHORISED AND COMPETANT PERSON THAT THERE IS NO VALID/LEGAL NOTICE UNDER THE RAILWAY ACT. AS PER THE STATUTARY PROVISION OF THE LAW.IT IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE. IT WAS DENIED THAT THE TANK WAGON WAS LOADED WITH 67,200 LITERS OF MS AND THE LOADING DIP MEASUREMENT WAS 257.5CM. IN THIS CONNECTION THE REMARKS CLEARLY GIVEN ON THE RR MAY BE PERUSED.AS PER THE RR,THE WAGON WERE LOADED AND SEALING BY THE CONSIGNOR/APPLICANT IN HIS SIDING,DIP MEASUREMENT,TEMPERATURE AND LOADING NOT SUPERVISED BY THE RLY STAFF.IT IS DENIED THAT ANY LOSS IN THE CONSIGNMENT TOOK PLACE DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCE AND MISCONDUCT OF THE RAILWAY.  19/Feb/2010  No  No  No  No
 56  OC/23/2005  2030500019 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  15284  NR  Case Settled by RCT LUCKNOW on 17-NOV-11 in favour of Party  IOC VIDE RR 008761 DATED 14.05.02 BOOKED A RAKE OF 24 TWS CONTAINING MS EX-BAHAULI TO AMAUSI. OUT OF SAID RAKE, TW NO.WR956651 CONTAINING 66480 LITRES WITH DIP OF 255.2 CM WAS FOUND LEAKING AT DESTINATION LOCATION RESULTING INTO LOSS OF 703 LITRES OF MS WORTH RS.15,284.00. IN JOINT DIP, TOP & BOTTOM SEALS WERE FOUND MISSING PROVING THAT SOME TAMPERING WAS COMMITTED ENROUTE. FURTHER, AT ALL THE LOADING LOCATIONS, PAID RAILWAY STAFF ARE POSTED TO SUPERVISE THE LOADING. AT LOADING LOCATION, IN CASE ANY LEAKAGE/DEFECT, BEFORE OR AFTER LOADING, IS NOTICED IN ANY TW, RAILWAY STAFF ISSUES MEMO IN THIS REGARD AND DETAIN THE DEFECTIVE TW. HENCE RAILWAYS ARE LIABLE TO MAKE GOOD OF THE LOSS. MANDATORY NOTICE DATED 03.10.02 WAS ALSO SERVED BUT OF NO AVAIL.  13/Oct/2011  LOADING & UNLOADING IS DONE BY OWNER AT THEIR PRICVATE SIDING AND SAME WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY. THERE IS NO DELAY IN ROUTE.THOUGH THE SOME OF THE SEAL WERE FOUND MISSING BUT TOP & BOTTOM VALVE AND MANHOLE COVER FOUND INTACT. AS SUCH ALLEGED LEAKAGE IS DUE TO CARELESSNESS OF REFINERY STAFF.  29/Aug/2011  No  No  No  No
 57  OA/165/2005  2030500123 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  76970  NR  Case Settled by RCT GHAZIABAD on 24-JUL-13 in favour of Party  HSD TANK WAGON NO.NR95566 DESPATCHED FROM BAHAULI TO MEERUT VIDE RR NO.991504 DT. 16/08/01. TANK WAGON RECIVED WITHOUT TOP & BOTTOM SEALS. IN THIS CASE RAILWAY IS LIABLE TO PAY FOR SHORT DELIVERY OF THE PRODUCT.  02/Aug/2011  1. NO PROPER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 106 OF RLY. ACT 1989 HAS BEEN ISSUED AND APPICATION IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 2. THE JOINT DIP CERTIFICATE DOES MOT CONTAIN ANY MENTION OF LEAKAGE. THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED WAS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DID NOT AMOUNT TO ADMISSION OF SHORTAGE OF QUANTITY OF MATERIAL, AS ALLEGED. THE RAILWAY RECEIPT CONTAIN REMARKS SUCH AS SAID TO CONTAIN SWA, SENDER WEIGHT ACCEPTED. THE RESPONDENT ARE NOT LIABLE IN THIS REGARD.  08/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 58  OA/19/1995  2030600046 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  102921  NR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT DELHI on 01-OCT-10 in favour of Party  IOC HAD BOOKED 5 TWS LDO EX IOC PANKI TO IOC SSB. 1 TW NO. CR-102687 WAS NOT DELIVERED ALONGWITH THE OTHER TANK WAGONS. NDC WAS ISSUED BY THE RAILWAYS ON 30.4.1992 AND CLAIM NO. SSB/1645/92 DATED 13.7.1992 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.102921/-WAS LODGED. THE HON¿BLE RCT, DELHI, WHILE GOING THROUGH THE MERITS OF THE CASE, HAS AGREED THAT THE WAGON WAS NOT DELIVERED TO IOC. HE HAD AGREED THAT THE RESPONDENT, I.E. THE RAILWAYS HAD FAILED TO RAISE ANY EFFECTIVE DISPUTE TO THE VALUE OF THE CONSIGNMENT, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO ATTRACT EVEN A BIT OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 98 OF THE ACT. HE HAS ALSO AGREED THAT THE APPLICANT HAD SUFFERED LOSS DUE TO WRONG DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 110. HOWEVER, THE CASE HAS BEEN WRONGLY REJECTED ON TECHNICAL GROUND THAT THE CLAIM PETITION WAS NOT SIGNED, VERIFIED AND INSTITUTED BY A DULY AUTHORIZED PERSON ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, IOC. THE BASIS ON WHICH THE CLAIM APPLICATION WAS REJECTED WAS CURATIVE IN NATURE AND COULD HAVE BEEN CORRECTED. CONSIDERING THAT THE CLAIM WAS REJECTED BY HON¿BLE RCT ON THE BASIS OF CURATIVE TECHNICAL GROUNDS, WHILE FINDING MERITS IN THE CASE, IT IS REQUESTED THAT IOC SHOULD BE COMPENSATED TOWARDS THE CLAIM AMOUNT OF RS.102921/- WITH INTEREST.  13/Sep/2010  IT IS A CASE OF NON-DELIVERY. THE CONSIGNMENT IS LOADED BY THE CONSIGNOR IN THEIR SIDING AND THE TANK WAGON WAS SEALED BY THE PARTY THEMSELVES. THAT WHATEVER CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED BY THE PARTY AT THE FORWARDING STATION WAS DELIVERED TO THE PARTY AT DESTINATION STATION.THE RESPONDENT WAS INFORMED BY THE APPLICANT THAT SUBJECT TANK WAGON HAS BEEN DECANTED BY N.F.L.PLANT DADRI DISTT.GHAZIABAD.THE APPLICATION IS NOT SIGNED,VERIFIED AND INSTITUTED BY A DULY AUTHORISED PERSON ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT AND THEY ARE PROTECTED U/S94, 98 AND 110 OF RLY. ACT.  19/Feb/2010  No  No  No  No
 59  OC/33/2006  2030600069 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  271557  NR  Case Settled by RCT DELHI on 19-OCT-11 in favour of Party  WAGONNO.CR 44498 CONTAINING 22900 LTRS OF LDO WAS DESPATCHED FROM JALPAIGUDI TO SSB . IT WAS FOUND BY RPF THAT SOME QTY. WAS PILFRERAGED AT YARD AT JALPAIGUDI ONLY. ON JT DIP LOSS OF 1515 LTRS WAS FOUND. COST 1515 LTRS IS RS. 27,155. HENCE RAILWAYS ARE LIABLE TO MAKE GOOD OF THE LOSS. MANDATORY NOTICE DATED 09.03.04 WAS ALSO SERVED BUT OF NO AVAIL.  13/Oct/2011  THAT THE CLAIM OF THE APPLICANT WASSANCTIONED FOR A SUM OF RS 24467/- AFTER DEDUCTING THE IMPURITIES AND OTHER CHARGES AND THE APPLICANT WAS INFORMED VIDE LETTER DT. 11/8/04. THEY WERE INFORMED ON 9/9/04 AND 29/10/04. THAT THE AMOUNT WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE OUTSTANDING DUES, BUT NO REPLY WAS SENT BY THE APPLICANT .THEY WERE ALSO INFORMED THAT RS 2895206/- WAS LYING OUTSTANDING AGAINST THE APPLICANT AT SSB AS ON 05/10/04, HENCE THE SAID SANCTIONED AMOUNT OF RS 24467/-WAS ADJUSTED AND THE APPLICANT WAS ASKED TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF THE REMAINING OUTSTANDING AMOUNT.ON MERRITS, IT WAS SPECEIFICALLY DENIED THAT 22900 LITRE OF LDO WERE LOADED IN THE SAID WAGON AT THE FORWARDING STATION . THE LOADING AND SEALING WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY THE RESPONDENT AT THE FORWARDING STATION. THE JOINT DIP WAS ISSUED WITHOUT PREDUDICE TO THE RIGHTS OF THE RESPONDENT AND IT DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE ALLEGED SHORTAGE HAS TAKEN DURING THE CONTROL AND CUSTUDY OF THE RESPONDENT.  21/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 60  OC/31/2006  2030600091 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  76380  NR  Case Settled by RCT LUCKNOW on 06-SEP-11 in favour of Party  THE TANK WAGON NOS.SE-96644, WR-986597 & WR-906631 WERE SHIPPED EX NUMALIGARH TO AONLA AGAINST RR NO.648087, INV.NO.07 DT. 26.07.2003 CONTAINING 64200, 65400 & 64200 LTRS OF HSD ON ACCOUNT OF HPCL. AS PER JDC, SAID TANK WAGONS RECEIVED AT DESTINATION ON 05.08.2003 AND IT WAS FOUND THAT TOP AND BOTTOM SEALS WERE MISSING, MANHOLE COVER OPEN,SIGN OF LEAKAGE AND MINOR SEEPAGE WAS OBSERVED AT DISCHARGE PIPE.THE PRODUCT RECEIVED WERE 64153, 65019 & 60077 LTRS OF HSD RESULTING A NET SHORTAGE OF 47, 381 & 4123 LTRS (TOTAL 4551 LTRS) OF HSD AMOUNTING RS.76380/-.  05/Aug/2011  1-IN WAGON NO.SE96644,SE986567 TOP & BOTTOM SEAL MISSING BUT TOP AND BOTTOM FOUND INTACT AND NO SIGN OF LEKAGE FOUND AT DESTINATION. 2-THERE IS ONLY MINOR SEPAGE FROM PIPE LINE FOUND IN WAGON NO.WR906031 WHICH IS DUE TO CARELESSNESS OF THE REFINARY STAFF WHO FAIL TO TIGHT NUT BOLT AND VOLVE AT FORWARDING POINT. 3-LODING SEALING NUT BOLT TIGHTENING AND DIP MEASUARMENT IS NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF. AS SUCH RAILWAY IS NOT LIABLE.  03/Aug/2011  No  No  No  No
 61  OC/21/2007  2030600135 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  95045  NR  Case Settled by RCT LUCKNOW on 06-SEP-11 in favour of Party  THE TANK WAGON NOS.NF-91007 & WR-906871 WERE SHIPPED EX MATHURA TO AMOUSI IRD AGAINST RR NO.661790 DT. 13.12.2001 CONTAINING 66480 & 133240 LTRS OF MS ON ACCOUNT OF HPCL. AS PER JDC, SAID T/WS RECEIVED AT DESTINATION ON 15.12.2001 AND WERE FOUND LEAKING WITH BOTH TOP & BOTTOM SEAL MISSING & CONTINUOUS LEAKAGE FROM BOTTOM PIPELINE DROP BY DROP AGAINST SHIPPING DIP OF 260.2 CMS & 255.5 CMS. THE DIP RECEIVED WAS 249.3CMS. & 242.1 CMS. RESULTING A NET SHORTAGE OF 1657 & 2339 LTRS (TOTAL 3996 LTRS) OF MS AMOUNTING RS.95045/-.  04/Aug/2011  1-THE BOTTOM SEAL WAS NOT PROVIDED AT FORWARDING. 2-THE WAGON REACHED ON 15/12/2001WITHIN N.T.P.WITHOUT ANY INTERFENCE,DELY IN ROUT. 3-LOADING,SEALING,NUT,BOLT TIGTENING IS DONE BY HPCL AND NO SUPERVISON OF RLY. 4-THE LEAKAGE FROM PIPE LINE IS ADMISSIBLE ONLY WHEN BOTTOM VALVE IS NOT PROPERLY TIGHTEND AT ORGINATING. AS SUCH RAILWAY IS NOT LAIBLE.  03/Aug/2011  No  No  No  No
 62  OC/5/2007  2030600473 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  4286724  NR  HC/DLI  IOCL HAS BOOKED CONSIGNMENT FROM BJU TO SSB VIDE RR. NO. 811106 DATED 24.8.2004. OUT OF SAID CONSIGNMENT THREE TANK WAGON NO.NF91067, NR95326 AND SC 49793 CONTAINING 65040, 65040 AND 65220 LTRS. OF HSD RESPECTIVELY WERE NOT DELIVERD AND NON DELIVERY CERTIFICATE ISSUED WAS ISSUED BY RLYS. ON 1.12.2004. THESE WAGONS WERE DECANTED BY RLYS ENROUTE. COST OF 195600 LTS OF HSD AT THE RATE OF RS.21915.77 PER KL IS RS.42,86,724.61. HONORABLE RCT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30.09.2008 DISMISSED THE CLAIM AS ADJUSTED AGAINST UNCONNECTED WAGONS CR-46471, SC-499099 AND ER-61304. HENCE PRESENT APPEAL IS BY IOC.  10/Oct/2011  IT WAS STATED THAT ALLEGED TANK WAGON NO NF 91067,NR95326,SC 49793WEREDECANTED BY SR SECTION ENGINEER LOCO E C RAILWAY .MUGHALSARAI ON 24/8/04 AND THE CCM E.C RAILWAY MAHINDRA GHAT .PATNA WAS ADVISED TO ISSUE COVER SUPPLY ORDER TO THE APPLICANT COMPANY .IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED SINCE THE CONSIGNMENT WAS CONSUMED BY E.C RAILWAY ,MUGHALSARAI AS SUCH THE PRESENT CLAIM PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AGAINST THE NORTHERN RAILWAY .IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SUPPLIED THE COPY OF THE STOCK REGISTER TO PROVE THE QUANTITY OF THE CONSIGNMENT LOADED AT THE FORWARDING STATION AND AS SUCH THE VALUE GIVEN BY THE APPLICANT IS DENIED.  08/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 63  OA/793/1997  2030700196 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  98368  NR  Case Settled by RCT GORAKHPUR on 17-NOV-11 in favour of Party  IOC VIDE RR B859262 DATED 15.05.90 BOOKED A RAKE OF 5 TWS OF MS EX-BJW TO SFG. OUT OF SAID RAKE, TW NO.ER 35629 CONTAINING 66640 LITRES WITH DIP OF 255.0 CM, DUE TO SOME DEFECT ENROUTE GOT TRANSHIPPED INTO ANOTHER TW BEARING NO.WR 906658 AND WAS DELIVERED TO IOC ON 26.11.90. AT THE TIME OF DELIVERY TW WAS FOUND SHORT AT DESTINATION LOCATION RESULTING INTO LOSS OF 10694 LITRES OF MS WORTH RS.98,368.00.00. IN JOINT DIP, TOP & BOTTOM SEALS WERE FOUND MISSING PROVING THAT SOME TAMPERING WAS COMMITTED ENROUTE. FURTHER, AT ALL THE LOADING LOCATIONS, PAID RAILWAY STAFF ARE POSTED TO SUPERVISE THE LOADING. AT LOADING LOCATION, IN CASE ANY LEAKAGE/DEFECT, BEFORE OR AFTER LOADING, IS NOTICED IN ANY TW, RAILWAY STAFF ISSUES MEMO IN THIS REGARD AND DETAIN THE DEFECTIVE TW. HENCE RAILWAYS ARE LIABLE TO MAKE GOOD OF THE LOSS. MANDATORY NOTICE DATED 20.10.90 WAS ALSO SERVED BUT OF NO AVAIL.  13/Oct/2011  LOADING AND UNLOADIG IS DONE BY OWNER AT THIER SIDING AND SAME WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY THE RAILWAY.  03/Oct/2011  No  No  No  No
 64  OC/22/2005  2030700284 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  26006  NR  Case Settled by RCT LUCKNOW on 17-NOV-11 in favour of Party  IOC VIDE RR 833607 DATED 09.10.02 BOOKED A RAKE OF 22 TWS CONTAINING HSD EX-MATHURA TO BANTHRA. OUT OF SAID RAKE, TW NO.SC49806 CONTAINING 65520 LITRES WITH DIP OF 252.1 CM WAS FOUND LEAKING AT DESTINATION LOCATION RESULTING INTO LOSS OF 1569 LITRES OF HSD WORTH RS.26,006.00. IN JOINT DIP, BOTTOM SEALS WERE FOUND MISSING PROVING THAT SOME TAMPERING WAS COMMITTED ENROUTE. FURTHER, AT ALL THE LOADING LOCATIONS, PAID RAILWAY STAFF ARE POSTED TO SUPERVISE THE LOADING. AT LOADING LOCATION, IN CASE ANY LEAKAGE/DEFECT, BEFORE OR AFTER LOADING, IS NOTICED IN ANY TW, RAILWAY STAFF ISSUES MEMO IN THIS REGARD AND DETAIN THE DEFECTIVE TW. HENCE RAILWAYS ARE LIABLE TO MAKE GOOD OF THE LOSS. MANDATORY NOTICE DATED 14.03.03 WAS ALSO SERVED BUT OF NO AVAIL.  13/Oct/2011  PROTECTIVE REMARKS ON ORR, TOP SEAL OF DISPUTED WAGON INTACT AND LEAKAGE FROM BOTTOM VALVE DUE TO DEFECTIVE PACKING PROVIDED BY SENDER IS THE GROUND OF CONTESTM IN RCT/LKO.  03/Oct/2011  No  No  No  No
 65  OA/11/2008  2030700329 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  29112  NR  Case Settled by RCT DELHI on 19-OCT-11 in favour of Party  IOC VIDE RR 810430 DATED 20.03.05 BOOKED A RAKE OF 12 TWS CONTAINING LDO EX-SILIGURI TO SHAKURBASTI. OUT OF SAID RAKE, TW NO.NR 78583 CONTAINING 23710 LITRES WITH DIP OF 203.1 CM, DUE TO HEAVY LEAKAGE ENROUTE GOT TRANSHIPPED INTO ANOTHER TW BEARING NO.CR 48347 AND AT THE TIME OF TRANSHIPMENT, JOINT DIP WAS TAKEN AND OBSERVED LOSS OF 1155 LITRES OF LDO WORTH RS.29,112.00.00. IN JOINT DIP, SEALS WERE FOUND INTACT BUT BODY LEAKAGE. FURTHER, AT ALL THE LOADING LOCATIONS, PAID RAILWAY STAFF ARE POSTED TO SUPERVISE THE LOADING. AT LOADING LOCATION, IN CASE ANY LEAKAGE/DEFECT, BEFORE OR AFTER LOADING, IS NOTICED IN ANY TW, RAILWAY STAFF ISSUES MEMO IN THIS REGARD AND DETAIN THE DEFECTIVE TW. HENCE RAILWAYS ARE LIABLE TO MAKE GOOD OF THE LOSS. MANDATORY NOTICE DATED 21.06.05 WAS ALSO SERVED BUT OF NO AVAIL.  14/Oct/2011  THAT THE CONSIGNMENT IN QUESTION WAS WAGON LOAD CONSIGNMENT AND LOADING OF THE CONSIGNMENT WAS DONE AT THE APPLICANTS PRIVATE SIDING THAT IS IOC SIDING BY THEMSELVES, THE LOADING DIPPING AND SEALING WAS NOT WITNESSED AND SUPERVISED BY THE RLY STAFF AND THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED UNDER SAID TO CONTAIN AND SWA AND ENDORSEMENT TO THERE EFFECT WERE MADE ON THE FACE OF THE RR AS WELL AS ON FORWARDING NOTE WHICH WERE DULY ACCEPTED BY THE APPLICANT CORPORATION AS SUCH IT IS THE APPLICANT WHO HAS TO PROVE THE LOADING WITHIN OF THE CONSIGNMENT WITHOUT WHICH THE SUPERINTENDENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY LOSS. IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF THE SEC. 65/2 AND SEC.94/1 OF THE RLY. ACT. THE APPLICANT S CASE IS THE CASE OF SHORT LOADING AND NOT OF SHORT DILIVERY. THERE WAS NO INTERFERENCE IN THE CONSIGNMENT DURING THE TRANSIT PERIOD AND THE CLAIM IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED.  21/Apr/2010  Yes  Yes  Yes  No
 66  OA/51/2008  2030800064 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  689162  NR  Case Settled by RCT DELHI on 20-MAY-14 in favour of Party  TANK WAGON NO.WR-44807 ALONG WITH 4 OTHER TANK WAGONS WAS BOOKED FOR CARRIAGE BY RAIL FROM HPC SIDING VOSG TROMBAY C.RAILWLAY ( MAHUL TERMINAL/REFINARY0 TO HPCL, SHAKURBASTI, DELHI IN FAVOUR OF THE APPLICANT UNDER RAILWAY RECEIPT NO.090710 DT. 10.10.2006. THE TANK WAGON NO.WR-44807 WAS LOADED WITH 23590 LTRS OF LDO AND THE LOADING DIP MEASUREMENT WAS 200.4 CMS. THE SAID TANK WAGON WAS NOT PLACED IN THE HPCL SIDING FOR UNLOADING WITH THE OTHER FOUR TANK WAGONS BOOKED UNDER RR NO.D-090710 DT.10.10.06. A LETTER DT. 7.12.06 WAS SERVED ON THE CHIEF GOODS SUPERVISOR, SHAKURBASTI FOR NON RECEIPT OF ALL THE 5 TANK WAGONS BOOKED UNDER RR NO.D-090710 DT. 10.10.06 WHEN THE SAID TANK WAGONS WERE NOT RECEIVED/PLACED AT SHAKURBASTI TERMINAL, DELHI. HOWEVER, FOUR TANK WAGONS NAMELY TANK WAGON NO.ER-33169, CR-102366, SE-95495, CR-100149 WERE PLACED AND DECANTED IN OUR SHAKURBASTI TERMINAL ON 15.10.2006. THE CHIEF GOODS SUPERVISOR, SHAKURBASTI HAD ISSUED THE NON DELIVERY CERTIFICATE DT.11.12.2006 STATING THAT THE TANK WAGON NO.WR-44807 WAS OUT OF DESTINATION UPTO 11.12.06 WHICH IS ON RECORD. THE NON DELIVERY CERTIFICATE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE TANK WAGON NO.WR-44807 WAS NOT DELIVERED TO APPLICATION CORPORATION. THAT THE NON DELIVERY OF 23590 LTLRS OF LDO WAS TAKEN ON RECORD BY THE APPLICANT IN THE INVENTORY ENTRY DT. 15.12.06. THAT A LIST OF THE TANK WAGON UNLOADED ON 15.10.06, T/W UNLOADING SHEET IS PLACED ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT TANK WAGON NO.WR-44807 BOOKED UNDER RRNO.D-090710 DT. 10.10.06 HAD NOT BEEN PLACED BY THE APPLICANT AT THEIR SIDING ON 14.10.06 AND NOT UNLOADED ON 15.10.06. THE SUBJECT TANK WAGON HAD NOT BEEN DELIVERED TO THE APPLICANT ON ANY OTHER DATE AT SHAKURBASTI, DELHI.  26/Jul/2010   THE CLAIM APPLICATION IS NOT MAINTABLE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE GRANT OF CLEARANCE BY THE HIGH POWERED COMMITTEE AND AS SUCH IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. IT WAS STATED THAT THE SUBJECT TANK WAGON DULY REACHED WITH THE RAKE AT THE DESTINATION STATION ON 14/10/06 AND WAS PLACEDIN THE PRIVATE SIDING OF THE APPLICANT AT SSB FOR UNLOADING.THE CONTANTS OF TANK WAGON WAS DECAUTED BY THE CONSIGNEE IN ITS OWN PRIVATE SIDING.  19/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 67  OA/10/2008  2030800104 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  32679  NR  Case Settled by RCT LUCKNOW on 14-JUL-11 in favour of Party  HSD TANK WAGON NO.WCR 27590 DESPATCHED FROM NUMALIGARH TO BANTHRA VIDE RR NO.699072 DT. 02/12/06. TANK WAGON RECIVED WITHOUT TOP & BOTTOM SEALS WITH LEAKAGE. VALVES AND MANHOLE COVERS WERE ALSO OPENED. IN THIS CASE RAILWAY IS LIABLE TO PAY FOR SHORT DELIVERY OF THE PRODUCT.  02/Aug/2011  THE CONSIGNMENTWAS FILLED BY THE SENDER AT THEIR PVT SDG.NEITHER LOADING WAS SUPERVISED NOR DIP WAS VERIFIED BY THE RLY STAFF AT FOEWARDING STATION. THE CONSIGNMENT REACHED DESTONATION WITHIN NORMOL TRANSIT TIME AND PLACED AT THEIR SIDING U/S 94/2  25/Mar/2011  No  No  No  No
 68  OA/3/2009  2030900020 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  59830  NR  Case Settled by RCT LUCKNOW on 14-JUL-11 in favour of Party  SKO TANK WAGON NO.NF90675 DESPATCHED FROM NUMALIGARH TO BANTHRA VIDE RR NO.696362 DT. 21/02/08. TANK WAGON RECIVED WITHOUT TOP & BOTTOM SEALS AND WITH MANHOLE COVER LYING OPENED. IN THIS CASE RAILWAY IS LIABLE TO PAY FOR SHORT DELIVERY OF THE PRODUCT.  02/Aug/2011  THE CONSGNMENT WAS LOADED BY OWNER AT THEIR PVT SDG.NEITHER LOADIND WAS SUPERVISED NOR DIP VERIFIED BY RLY STAFF AT FORWARDING STATION.THECONIGNMENT REACHED DESTONATION WITHIN NORMAL TRANSIT TIME AND PLACED AT THEIR SDG ON 26/02/08 AND DELIVERED.NO DEFECT IN TANK WAGON. RLY ADMIN IS NOT LIABLE U/S94/2  25/Mar/2011  No  No  No  No
 69  OC/12/2005  2030900282 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  340667  NR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT DELHI on 09-FEB-11 in favour of Party  THIS CLAIM WAS DISMISSED BY RCT ,DELHI ON 29/7/2008 ON THE GROUNDS THAT OUR CLAIM PETITION WAS NOT FILED WITHIN TIME FRAME. IN THIS CONNECTION , WE WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT AS PER OUR RECORD THE CLAIM NOTICE WAS SERVED BY HAND ON 07/04/2003, WELL WITHIN THE TIME AND THE SAME WAS ACKNOWLEDGED AND SIGNED BY THE RECEIVER. THEREFORE, QUESTION OF TIME BARRED CASE DOES NOT ARISE. IN THIS CASE NON DELIVERY CERTIFICATE WAS ALSO ISSUED BY THE RAILWAY AUTHORITIES . THE TW NO. ER60549 WAS BOOKED EX BRSG TO SSB UNDER RR NO. 806427 DATED 5/12/2002. THIS WAGON WAS NEVER DELIVERED TO BPCL AT ANY LOCATION AND IS CLEAR CASE OF NEGLIGENCE ON RAILWAYS PART . IT IS ALSO PROVED FROM THE CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FROM CCO, NR , BEARING REFERENCE NUMBER AS POL.2.SSB.10300139-4-03 DATED 1/4/2004 WHEREIN THE CHIEF CLAIMS OFFICER HAS ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT OF OUR CLAIM AND HAVE ASSURED US THAT THE MATTER IS UNDER PROCESS. THE LAST FOUR DIGIT OF THE REFERENCE NUMBER OF THE CLAIM ALSO PROVES THAT OUR CLAIM WAS RECEIVED IN TIME AND ACCORDINGLY REFERENCE NUMBER WAS GENERATED IN APRIL,2003. WE , THEREFORE, REQUEST YOU TO KINDLY GRANT THE CLAIMED COMPENSATION OF RS.340667/- ALONG WITH INTEREST  02/Jul/2010  THE APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED, VERIFIED AND FILED BY A LEGALLY AUTHORISED AND COMPETENT PERSON ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED BY THE APPLICANT IN HIS PRIVATE SIDING THEMSELVES.THE LOADING, DIPPING AND SEALING WAS NOT WITNESSED AND SUPERVISED BY THE RAILWAY STAFF. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED UNDER SAID TO CONTAIN AND AT OWNER RISK AND ENDORSMENT TO THESE EFFECT WERE MADE ON THE FACE OF THE RR AS WELL AS FORWARDING NOTE IT IS THE APPLICANT WHO HAS TO PROVE THE LOADING WITHOUT WHICH THE RESPODENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY LOSS IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF SEC.65(2) TO SEC.94(1) OF THE RAILWAY ACT.IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT LEGAL AND VALID CLAIM NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED. THAT THE CONSIGNMENT IN QUESTION WAS WAGON LOAD AND THERE WAS NO INTERFERENCE DURING THE TRANSIT PERIOD AND THERE WAS NO UNNECESSARY DELAY IN ARRIVING AT THE DESTINATION STATION AND THERE WAS NO MISCONDUCT OR NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE RAILWAY.  05/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 70  OC/29/2007  2030900287 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  48128  NR  Case Settled by RCT LUCKNOW on 14-JUL-11 in favour of Party  SKO TANK WAGON NO.NR95894 DESPATCHED FROM MANGLIA GAON TO BANTHRA VIDE RR NO.103585 DT.05/04/05. PRODUCT WAS PILFERRED NEAR KOTA IN THE NIGHT. A CASE OF THEFT WAS REGISTERED BY RAILWAY POLICE. TANK WAGON RECIVED WITHOUT TOP & BOTTOM SEALS AND WITH MANHOLE COVER LYING OPENED. IN THIS CASE RAILWAY IS LAIBLE TO PAY FOR SHORT DELIVERY OF THE PRODUCT.  02/Aug/2011  THE SAID WAGON RECEIVED AT DESTONATION DATED08/04/05 WITHOUT LOADING ANY TIME INTRANSIT.THERE IS ONLY TOP AND BOTTOM SEAL MISSING WHILE THE TOP AND BOTTOM VOLVE AND NUTSAND BOTH WERE FOUND INTACT AS SUCH RLY IS NOT LIABLE U/S 94 /2 RLY ACT1989.THERE IS NO SIGN OF LEAKAGE AT DESTONATION.  25/Mar/2011  No  No  No  No
 71  OA/28/2007  2030900290 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  96618  NR  Case Settled by RCT LUCKNOW on 14-JUL-11 in favour of Party  HSD TANK WAGON NO.WR906551, WR906577, WR906704 DESPATCHED FROM MANGLIA GAON TO BANTHRA VIDE RR NO.103582 DT.05/04/05. PRODUCT WAS PILFERRED NEAR KOTA DURING THE NIGHT. A CASE OF THEFT WAS REGISTERED BY RAILWAY POLICE. TANK WAGON RECIVED WITHOUT TOP & BOTTOM SEALS AND WITH MANHOLE COVER LYING OPEN. IN THIS CASE RAILWAY IS LAIBLE TO PAY FOR SHORT DELIVERY OF THE PRODUCT.  02/Aug/2011  LOADING ,SEALING AND TEIGHTNING OF VOLVES WERE DONE BY THE CONSIGNOR AT THEIR PVT SDG.LOADING AND UNLOADIND WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY RLY STAFF. CONSGNMENT WAS DELIVERED ON 08/04/05 WITHINNORMALTRANSIT TIME. RLY ADMN IS NOT LIABLE U/S 94/2  25/Mar/2011  No  No  No  No
 72  OC/44/2004  2030900291 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  41963  NR  Case Settled by RCT LUCKNOW on 14-JUL-11 in favour of Party  MS TANK WAGON NO.NF91196 DESPATCHED FROM BAAD TO AMOUSI VIDE RR NO.661789 DT. 13/12/01. TANK WAGON RECIVED WITHOUT TOP & BOTTOM SEALSWITH LEAKAGE FROM BOTTOM PIPELINE DROP BY DROP. IN THIS CASE RAILWAY IS LIABLE TO PAY FOR SHORT DELIVERY OF THE PRODUCT.  04/Aug/2011  LOADING ,SEALING AND TEIGHTNING OF VOLVES WERE DONE BY THE CONSIGNOR AT THEIR PVT SDG.LOADING AND UNLOADIND WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY RLY STAFF. CONSGNMENT WAS DELIVERED ON 08/04/05 WITHINNORMALTRANSIT TIME. RLY ADMN IS NOT LIABLE U/S 94/2  25/Mar/2011  No  No  No  No
 73  OA/77/1999  2031000004 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  51687  NR  Case Settled by RCT GORAKHPUR on 17-NOV-11 in favour of Party  IOC VIDE RR 697715 DATED 03.07.95 BOOKED A RAKE OF 10 TWS OF HSD EX-BGB TO SFG. OUT OF SAID RAKE, TW NO.ER 98388 CONTAINING 23950 LITRES WITH DIP OF 184.5 CM WAS RECEIVED AT DESTINATION AFTER AN ABNORMAL DELAY OF 4 MONTHS AND FOUND LEAKING RESULTING INTO LOSS OF 7846 LITRES OF HSD WORTH RS.51,687.00. IN JOINT DIP, TOP & BOTTOM SEALS WERE FOUND MISSING PROVING THAT SOME TAMPERING WAS COMMITTED ENROUTE. FURTHER, AT ALL THE LOADING LOCATIONS, PAID RAILWAY STAFF ARE POSTED TO SUPERVISE THE LOADING. AT LOADING LOCATION, IN CASE ANY LEAKAGE/DEFECT, BEFORE OR AFTER LOADING, IS NOTICED IN ANY TW, RAILWAY STAFF ISSUES MEMO AND DETAIN THE DEFECTIVE TW. HENCE RAILWAYS ARE LIABLE TO MAKE GOOD OF THE LOSS. MANDATORY NOTICE DATED 01.12.95. WAS ALSO SERVED BUT OF NO AVAIL.  14/Oct/2011   TOP BOTTOM SEAL ALTHOUGH FOUND MISSING BUT VALVE,NUTS, BOLTS FOUND PROPERLY INTACT AND NO SIGN OF LEAKAGE FOUND AT THE TIME OF JOINT DIP. THE SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 106 OF RA 1989 IS STRONGLY DENIED BY RAILWAY.  03/Oct/2011  No  No  No  No
 74  OC/1494/2001  2050100382 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  2203258  NF  RCT/CCC  RCT KOLKATA VIDE CA NO. 1494/2001 GAVE VERDICT IN FAVOUR OF BPCL QUOTING ¿UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, THE RESPONDENT RAILWAY COULD BE COMPELLED TO WORK IN A SIDING WHEN THE TRACK CONDITIONS WERE UNSAFE AND THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW THE RESPONDENT RAILWAY IN THIS CASE HAS NOT ACTED WITH SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY, SPECIALLY WHEN IT WAS KNOWN TO ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICIALS THAT THE SIDING WAS NOT BEING MAINTAINED PROPERLY AND SUCH ACCIDENT WOULD OCCUR AT ANY POINT OF TIME. WE THEREFORE HOLD THE RESPONDENT RAILWAY LIABLE FOR PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION IN LTHIS CASE. WE THEREFORE, PASS ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION OF RS.22,03,258/- TO THE APPLICANT BY THE RESPONDENT RAILWAY FOR NON-DELIVERY OF 267160 LITERS OF HSD. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT WILL ALSO GET A LUMPSUM AMOUNT OF RS.1,000/- AS PLEADER¿S FEE AND RS. 12,530/- AS APPLICATION FEE. THE APPLICANT IS THUS, ENTITLED TO A TOTAL DECREE FOR RS.22,16,788/-¿. THE SIDING BELONGS TO BRPL. MAINTENANCE PART IS CONCERNED WITH BRPL ONLY BUT NOT WITH BPCL. IN THIS CASE BPCL IS A 3RD PARTY AND NO WHERE IS CONNECTED IN THIS MATTER. THE SUBJECT MATTER WAS NOT KNOWN TO BPCL ALSO. PLACING THE T/WS AT SIDING, RAILWAYS CAN NOT DENY THEIR RESPONSIBILITY FOR DERAILMENT.  23/Feb/2011   (1) THAT THE RAILWAY CONTESTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 94(I) OF THE RAILWAYS ACT,1989 WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH. (2) THAT THE AFORESAID 7 TANK WAGONS GOT INVOLVED IN DERAILMENT ON 20-7-99 IN THE CONSIGNORS PREMISES DUE TO IMPROPER MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY TRACK FOR NON-PAYMENT OF DEMANDED DUES BY THE RAILWAY. HENCE, THE RESPONDENT RAILWAY IS NOT AT ALL LIABLE (3) THE CASE WAS CONTESTED ON THE GROUND OF TITLE UNDER SECTION 74 OF THE RAILWAY ACT, 1989. 13.RCT JUDGMENT: THE HON¿BLE RCT/KOLKATA ALLOWED ON CONTEST FOR RS.22,16,788/- INCLUDING PROPORTIONATE COST AND ADVOCATE FEE ON 9.8.2002. 14.WHO APPEALED IN HIGH COURT : RAILWAY PREFERRED APPEAL. 15. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN HIGH COURT: (I)THAT THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL MISDIRECTED ITSELF IN HOLDING THAT ALTHOUGH PURPORTED ACCIDENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE PRIVATE SIDING OF THE CONSIGNOR AND THE SAME OCCURRED DUE TO IMPROPER MAINTENANCE OF THE RAILWAY TRACK FOR NON-PAYMENT OF DEMANDED DUES BY THE RAILWAY AUTHORITIES. THE RAILWAY WAS STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PURPORTED LOSS IGNORING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 94 OF THE RAILWAY ACT, 1989. (II) THAT IN THIS CASE TITLE HAD NOT BEEN PASSED TO THE CONSIGNEE AS ORR WAS NOT FORMALLY HANDED OVER TO CONSIGNEE FROM CONSIGNOR UNDER THE PROVISION OF SEC.74 OF THE RLY. ACT. ( III) THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. TRIBUNAL IS PERVERSE, NOT BEING BASED ON ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT.  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 75  OA/829/2004  2050400110 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  499906  NF  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 17-MAR-16 in favour of Party  CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION WERE LODGED WITH RAILWAYS WELL IN TIME. CONSTANT FOLLOW UP WAS MADE WITH RAILWAYS TO MAINTAIN GOOD COMMERCIAL RELATION . HENCE CASE WAS FILED BEFORE RCT WITH A CONDONATION OF LIMITATION.  02/Aug/2010  (1) ON LIMITATION GROUND FOR DELAY OF 01 YEAR AND 05 DAYS AFTER EXPIRY OF 3 YEARS OF LIMITATION FOR FILING CLAIM APPLICATION. (2) THE APPLICANT ASKED CONDONATION OF DELAY ON THE GROUND OF EXPECTATION OF SETTLEMENT. (3) THE HON¿BLE HIGH COURT GUWAHATI IN MFA 37/1999 DECIDED THAT EXPECTATION OF SETTLEMENT IS NOT A GROUND FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. HENCE, THE PARTIES APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. THE INSTANT CASE ALSO MAY BE DECIDED IN THE LIGHT OF THIS DECISION.  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 76  OR/463/2005  2050600013 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  7171  NF  RCT/GHY  THIS IS A SIMPLE CASE OF EXCESS FREIGHT PAYMENT THROUGH DD. CLAIM WAS LODGED ON 19.10.2004 BUT STILL PENDING. WE REQUEST FOR EARLY SETTLEMNT OF THIS LONG PENDING ISSUE..  21/Jun/2010   RS.7171/- IS PAYBLE TO THE APPLICANT.  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 77  OA/107/2009  2050900022 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  130708  NF  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 24-NOV-14 in favour of Party  1. THE CLAIM APPLICATION WAS LODGED BY OUR CONCERNED OFFICER. 2. OUR ENTIRE CONSIGNMENTS ON ALL INDIA BASIS ARE SENT UNDER RAILWAY¿S RESPONSIBILITY AND AS PER RLY GUIDELINES THEY ENTERTAIN OUR TOTAL SHORTAGE/LEAKAGES AND IN CASE OF ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN US, WE APPEAL TO RCT AS USUAL. 3. AS PER RR COPY THE ¿RISK RATE¿ COLUMN HAS BEEN FILLED CLEARLY AS ¿RR¿ I.E. ¿RAILWAY¿S RISK¿ AND NOT ¿OWNER¿S RISK¿. 4. OUR LOADING POINTS ARE ALWAYS OPEN TO RAILWAY OFFICIALS FOR THEIR QUANTITY CHECKS. PETROLEUM PRODUCTS ARE HIGHLY HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS AND FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY, RAILWAYS MUST CHECK THE OVERLOADING, PROPER SEALING AND T/W FITTINGS ON COMPLETION OF LOADINGS WHICH IS A PART AND PARCEL OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AND BY NO MEANS THESE ASPECTS CAN BE DENIED OR OVERLOOKED FOR THE INTEREST OF COMMON PUBLIC DURING ITS JOURNEY TO DESTINATION. AVOIDING SUCH ASPECTS IS CONTRADRACTORY TO EXPLOSIVE FORMALITIES. 5. IN THIS CONSIGNMENT OUR T/WS WERE LEAKING DURING ITS JOURNEY WHICH WAS CERTIFIED BY THE RAILWAY AND OUR COMPANY OFFICIALS IN WRITING. 6. THE POSTAL RR COPY REACHED LATE AT THE DESTINATION POINT WHICH WAS BEYOND OUR JURISDICTION. THE T/W CALIBRATION CHART IS PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF PHYSICAL CALIBRATION DATA WHICH ARE JOINTLY INSPECTED BY RAILWAYS / OIL COMPANY AND TANK WAGON MANUFACTURING OFFICIALS. FINALLY, THE CTCC CHART IS SIGNED BY THE CHAIRMAN, CTCC AND CIRCULATED AMONGST ALL OF US. RAILWAYS CAN NOT DENY THE AUTHENTICITY OF BPCL SYSTEM GENERATED CTCC CHART WHICH IS ALSO OPEN FOR CROSS CHECKING.  22/Jun/2010  1.THAT THE APPLICATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS THE SAME IS NOT VERIFIED BY THE PROPER PERSON HAVING AUTHORITY. 2.THAT THE CONSIGNMENT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE BOOKED BY THE SENDER AT FORWARDING STATION UNDER REMARKS IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AS ¿SAID CONTAIN, THE WAGON LOADED AND DIP MEASUREMENT DONE BY THE SENDER, LOADING NOT SUPERVISED BY THE RAILWAY STAFF, SWA (SENDER WEIGHT ACCEPTED AS PER F/NOTE AND WAS LOADED INTO WAGON NFBTPN-90471 AND WR-907367. AS SUCH, THE ALLEGATION MADE IN THE APPLICATION IS ENIED. 3.THAT THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THE CONSIGNOR HAVE LOADED UP TO THE HEIGHT MENTIONED IN THE RR. THE C.T.C.C CHART WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT TO THAT THE QUANTITY STATED IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT WAS ACTUALLY LOADED, ARE THEIR OWN COMPUTERIZED PAPERS AND HENCE NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS LOADED THE ACTUAL QUANTITY .  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 78  OA/106/2009  2050900023 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  70422  NF  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 10-DEC-14 in favour of Party  1. THE CLAIM APPLICATION WAS LODGED BY OUR REGULAR CONCERNED OFFICER. RAILWAYS NEVER INFORMED ABOUT ANY DOUBT OF THE APPLICANT OR ITS IDENTITY PART IF THEY HAD ANY AMBIGUITY ON THIS ISSUE. 2. OUR ENTIRE CONSIGNMENTS ON ALL INDIA BASIS ARE SENT UNDER RAILWAY¿S RESPONSIBILITY AND AS PER RLY GUIDELINES THEY ENTERTAIN OUR TOTAL SHORTAGE/LEAKAGES AND IN CASE OF ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN US, WE APPEAL TO RCT AS USUAL. 3. AS PER RR COPY THE ¿RISK RATE¿ COLUMN HAS BEEN FILLED CLEARLY AS ¿RR¿ I.E. ¿RAILWAY¿S RISK¿ AND NOT ¿OWNER¿S RISK¿. 4. OUR LOADING POINTS ARE ALWAYS OPEN TO RAILWAY OFFICIALS FOR THEIR QUANTITY CHECKS. PETROLEUM PRODUCTS ARE HIGHLY HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS AND FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY, RAILWAYS MUST CHECK THE OVERLOADING, PROPER SEALING AND T/W FITTINGS ON COMPLETION OF LOADINGS WHICH IS A PART AND PARCEL OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AND BY NO MEANS THESE ASPECTS CAN BE DENIED OR OVERLOOKED FOR THE INTEREST OF COMMON PUBLIC DURING ITS JOURNEY TO DESTINATION. AVOIDING SUCH ASPECTS IS CONTRADRACTORY TO EXPLOSIVE FORMALITIES. 5. IN THIS CONSIGNMENT OUR T/WS WERE LEAKING DURING ITS JOURNEY WHICH WAS CERTIFIED BY THE RAILWAY AND OUR COMPANY OFFICIALS IN WRITING. 6. THE POSTAL RR COPY REACHED LATE AT THE DESTINATION POINT WHICH WAS BEYOND OUR JURISDICTION. THE T/W CALIBRATION CHART IS PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF PHYSICAL CALIBRATION DATA WHICH ARE JOINTLY INSPECTED BY RAILWAYS / OIL COMPANY AND TANK WAGON MANUFACTURING OFFICIALS. FINALLY, THE CTCC CHART IS SIGNED BY THE CHAIRMAN, CTCC AND CIRCULATED AMONGST ALL OF US. RAILWAYS CAN NOT DENY THE AUTHENTICITY OF BPCL SYSTEM GENERATED CTCC CHART WHICH IS ALSO OPEN FOR CROSS CHECKING.  22/Jun/2010  (1) THE IDENTITY OF PERSON WHO SERVED THE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 106 OF THE RAILWAY ACT, 1989 HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED. AS SUCH, THE APPLICANT IS PUT TO STRICT PROOF AND REQUIRED TO BE CARROBARATED WITH OTHER EVIDENCES REGARDING IDENTITY OF PERSON WHO ISSUES NOTICE UNDER SEC. 106 AND WHO BRINGS THE INSTANT SUIT. (2) THAT THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED BY THE SENDER AT FORWARDING STATION UNDER REMARKS IN RAILWAY RECEIPT AS ¿SAID TO CONTAIN¿ LOADING AND DIP MEASUREMENT DONE BY THE SENDER, LOADING NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF, S.W.A (SENDERS WEIGHT ACCEPTED), AS SUCH, THE ALLEGATION MADE BY THE APPLICANT IS DENIED AND PUT TO STRICT PROOF OF THE STATEMENT MAD IN THE APPLICATION. (3) THAT SINCE THE CONSIGNMENT LOADED IN THE PRIVATE SIDING OF THE CONSIGNOR AND NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF AS SUCH, THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THE CONSIGNOR HAVE LOADED UPTO THE HEIGHT MENTIONED IN THE RR. THE CTCC CHART ARE THEIR OWN COMPUTERIZED PAPERS AND AS SUCH, IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS LOADED 243 C.M. AS MENTIONED ON THE FACE OF THE ORR.  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 79  OA/105/2009  2050900024 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  27380  NF  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 16-DEC-14 in favour of Party  1. THE CLAIM APPLICATION WAS LODGED BY OUR REGULAR CONCERNED OFFICER. RAILWAYS NEVER INFORMED ABOUT ANY DOUBT OF THE APPLICANT OR ITS IDENTITY PART IF THEY HAD ANY AMBIGUITY ON THIS ISSUE. 2. OUR ENTIRE CONSIGNMENTS ON ALL INDIA BASIS ARE SENT UNDER RAILWAY¿S RESPONSIBILITY AND AS PER RLY GUIDELINES THEY ENTERTAIN OUR TOTAL SHORTAGE/LEAKAGES AND IN CASE OF ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN US, WE APPEAL TO RCT AS USUAL. 3. AS PER RR COPY THE ¿RISK RATE¿ COLUMN HAS BEEN FILLED CLEARLY AS ¿RR¿ I.E. ¿RAILWAY¿S RISK¿ AND NOT ¿OWNER¿S RISK¿. 4. OUR LOADING POINTS ARE ALWAYS OPEN TO RAILWAY OFFICIALS FOR THEIR QUANTITY CHECKS. PETROLEUM PRODUCTS ARE HIGHLY HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS AND FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY, RAILWAYS MUST CHECK THE OVERLOADING, PROPER SEALING AND T/W FITTINGS ON COMPLETION OF LOADINGS WHICH IS A PART AND PARCEL OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AND BY NO MEANS THESE ASPECTS CAN BE DENIED OR OVERLOOKED FOR THE INTEREST OF COMMON PUBLIC DURING ITS JOURNEY TO DESTINATION. AVOIDING SUCH ASPECTS IS CONTRADRACTORY TO EXPLOSIVE FORMALITIES. 5. IN THIS CONSIGNMENT OUR T/WS WERE LEAKING DURING ITS JOURNEY WHICH WAS CERTIFIED BY THE RAILWAY AND OUR COMPANY OFFICIALS IN WRITING. 6. THE POSTAL RR COPY REACHED LATE AT THE DESTINATION POINT WHICH WAS BEYOND OUR JURISDICTION. THE T/W CALIBRATION CHART IS PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF PHYSICAL CALIBRATION DATA WHICH ARE JOINTLY INSPECTED BY RAILWAYS / OIL COMPANY AND TANK WAGON MANUFACTURING OFFICIALS. FINALLY, THE CTCC CHART IS SIGNED BY THE CHAIRMAN, CTCC AND CIRCULATED AMONGST ALL OF US. RAILWAYS CAN NOT DENY THE AUTHENTICITY OF BPCL SYSTEM GENERATED CTCC CHART WHICH IS ALSO OPEN FOR CROSS CHECKING.  22/Jun/2010  (1) IDENTITY OF PERSON WHO SERVED THE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 106 HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED. AS SUCH, APPLICANT IS PUT TO STRICT PROOF REGARDING THE PERSON WHO ISSUES CLAIM NOTICE AND WHO FILED THE CLAIM APPLICATION. (2) ON THE GROUND OF RR REMARKS LIKE SAID TO CONTAIN, LOADING AND DIP MEASUREMENT DONE BY THE SENDER AND LOADING NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF. (3) SINCE, THE CONSIGNMENT LOADED IN THEIR PRINATE SIDING BY THE CONSIGNOR AND NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF, AS SUCH, THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THE CONSIGNOR HAVE LOADED UPTO THE HEIGHT MENTIONED IN THE RR. THE CTCC. CHART WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT ARE THEIR OWN COMPUTARISED PAPERS AND HENCE NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS LOADED 250.4 C.M AS MENTIONED ON THE FACE OF THE RR. ETC.  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 80  OA/125/2007  2060700064 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  107049  SR  Case Settled by RCT BANGALORE CITY on 23-JUN-11 in favour of Party  THE APPLICANT BOOKED 5 TANK WAGONS WITH THE CONSIGNMENT OF HSD FROM.MANGALORE TO BE DELIVERED AT BPCL,DEVANGONTHI UNDER INVOICE NO.RR NO.285/005724 DATED 27.02.2001. HOWEVER THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES DECANTED THE TANK WAGONS AT ELATHUR ITSELF WHICH IS AT A MUCH SHORTER DISTANCE THAN DEVANGONTHI. THE DISTANCE FROM MANGALORE TO DEVANGONTHI IS 820 KM WHEREAS THE DISTANCE FROM MANGALORE TO ELATHUR IS ONLY 231 KM. THE FREIGHT CHARGES FOR TRANSPORTATION OF WAGONS FROM MANGALORE TO ELATHUR WILL BE ONLY A SUM OF RS.45,461.00. THE APPLICANT MADE A REQUEST TO THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO REFUND THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS.1,07,049.00. THE APPLICANT ALSO ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 78 B OF THE INDIAN RAILWAY ACT VIDE THEIR NOTICE DATED.05.06.2001 WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE RESPONDENT ON 08.06.2001. SUBSEQUENTLY SEVERAL REMINDER NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE RESPONDENT. THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE NEITHER REPLIED TO THE NOTICE NOR MADE ANY SETTLEMENT OF THE FREIGHT CHARGES. HENCE, LEFT WITH NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE OR EFFICACIOUS THE APPLICANT HAD APPROACHED HON¿BLE RCT, BANGALORE FOR RECOVERY OF THE FREIGHT CHARGES FROM RESPONDENT AND NOW THE CLAIM IS BEFORE HONOURABLE JOINT INTERNAL DISPUTES RESOLUTION PANEL. THE APPLICANT IS A SUFFERER OF DILLY-DALLY ATTITUDE OF RAILWAY AUTHORITIES. THEY ARE DENYING OR SIMPLY SITTING OVER THE GENUINE CLAIM OF APPLICANT. ON THE FALSE PRETEXT THEY ARE SHIFTING THE LIABILITY TO KONKAN RAILWAY. THE APPLICANT HAD APPROACHED KONKAN RAILWAY ALSO SEVERAL TIMES BUT THEY HAD NOT RESPONDED DESPITE OUR SEVERAL LETTERS. IT IS REQUESTED THAT TECHNICALITY SHOULD NOT BE PITTED AGAINST JUSTICE AND JUSTICE SHOULD BE DONE TO THE APPLICANT, IF NECESSARY KONKAN RAILWAY SHOULD ALSO BE MADE A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING FOR PROPER ADJUDICATE OF APPLICANT¿S CLAIMS. IT IS RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THE HONOURABLE JOINT INTERNAL DISPUTES RESOLUTION PANEL MAY BE PLEASED TO HEAR AND SETTLE THE MATTER BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO PAY A SUM OF RS.107049.00 TOGETHER WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 21% PER ANNUM WITH COSTS.  26/Nov/2010  THE APPLICANT IS FOR RECOVERY OF REFUND OF PREPAID FREIGHT. TOKKUR IS ON KONKAN RAILWAY. THE SUBJECT WAGONS ARRIVED AT PLMD AS UNCONNECTED AND DECANTED BY HPCL AT ELATTUR ON 07/03/2001 WITHOUT PROTEST AS PER DOM LETTER NO. J/T.347/RB/DN/IV/K DT. 17/03/2001. THE APPLICANT HAS IMPLEADED ONLY SOUTHERN RAILWAY WHO IS NOT THE PROPER PARTY, SINCE THE CLAIM IS FOR REFUND OF FREIGHT. RAILWAYS CONTESTING THE CASE ON THE GROUNDS OF NON JOINDER OF PROPER PARTY, NAMELY KONKAN RAILWAY; AND CONSIGNMENT DELIVERED TO HPC AT ELATTUR. HENCE APPLICANT IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DIFFERENCE OF FREIGHT. THE APPLICATION IS PENDING.  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 81  OC/421/2000  2070300071 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  332906  SE  RCT/BPL  TW NO. NR-73792 LOADED WITH HSD24430 LTRS, BOOKED VIDE RR NO. 879973 DT.25/26.11.97 REPORTED MISSING. NDC CLAIM PREFERRED VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/SER/E/10/98-99 DT.2.4.98.SE RLY ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT OF CLAIM VDE REF.NO. WL/POL/CJ/HDCG/BSP/251/SD/4/98 DT.23.11.2000. MANY REMINDERS WERE SENT VIDE LETTER DT. 28.12.99, 22.8.2000. SE RLY ADVISED TO SEND COPY OF AC-5 VIDE LETTER DATED 23.11.2000. SAME WAS RESPONDED VIDE LETTER DATED 10.08.2001 AFTER RECEIPT OF LETTER. THEN SUIT WAS FILED IN RCT IN 2001 TO PROTECT IOC INTEREST. SE RLY GIVEN OFFER OF SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM FOR RS. 244784/- VIDE LETTER DATED 20.04.2005. SAME WAS PROMPTLY REPLIED BY US VIDE LETTER DATED 3.05.2005.TILL DATE NO JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY RCT  02/Dec/2010  THE INSTANT CASE HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED TO RA/BPL, MR. H. S. RAJPUR. THE CLAIM FOR NON-DELIVERY OF TANK WAGON NO.WR-73792 HAS BEEN SETTLED THROUGH MATCH ADJUSTMENT OF SIMILAR NUMBER OF UN-CONNECTED TANK WAGONS. PARTY REFUSED TO ACCEPT SUCH ADJUSTMENT AND CLAIMED EARLY PAYMENT.  06/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 82  OC/16/2001  2070300366 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  24100000  SE  RCT/SC  1. THE APPLICANT RINL HAS UTILIZED THE SERVICES OF THE RESPONDENT RAILWAYS FOR TRANSPORTATION OF COAL FROM KATHARA, SWANG AND KARGALI IN BIHAR TO VISAKHAPATNAM IN ANDHRA PRADESH . AS THE APPLICANT WAS UTILIZING THE SERVICES OF THE RESPONDENT ON A REGULAR BASIS, THE PAYMENT OF THE FREIGHT CHARGES WAS AGREED TO BE PAID AT PERIODICAL INTERVALS, AS PER THE BILLS RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT. THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT THE ORIGINAL RAILWAY RECEIPTS ARE SURRENDERED TO THE RESPONDENT WHILE TAKING DELIVERY OF CARGO AND ONLY XEROX COPIES ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE APPLICANT. 2. THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT THE FREIGHT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF THE MATERIALS WAS BEING CHARGED AS PER THE RATIONALIZED SCHEME GENERAL ORDER NO.1 OF 1990, ACCORDING TO WHICH THE FREIGHT CHARGES WERE CALCULATED AS PER THE LONGER ROUTE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ROUTE SPECIFIED ON THE FORWARDING NOTE. THIS PRACTICE OF CHARGING FREIGHT AS PER THE LONGER ROUTE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER THE GOODS WERE TRANSPORTED BY THE SHORTEST ROUTE OR ANY ROUTE OPERATIONALLY FEASIBLE WAS IMPLEMENTED FROM THE YEAR 1990. HOWEVER, IN OCTOBER 1994, THE UNION GOVERNMENT REVISED THE SAID RULE AND A CIRCULAR DATED 21.10.1994 WAS ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. ACCORDING TO THE SAID CIRCULAR, THE FREIGHT CHARGES ARE TO BE LEVIED BY THE SHORTEST ROUTE FROM 01.11.1994 AND THE GOODS ARE TO BE DISPATCHED BY THE ROUTE OPERATIONALLY FEASIBLE UNLESS THERE ARE SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE SENDER. IT IS NECESSARY TO MENTION HERE THAT NEITHER THE RESPONDENT NOR ANY OF ITS OPERATING STATIONS GAVE EFFECT TO THE SAID CHANGES IN THE RATIONALIZATION SCHEME. EVEN THE APPLICANT WAS NOT INFORMED ABOUT THE LEVY OF FREIGHT CHARGES BY THE SHORTEST ROUTE, THOUGH THE CIRCULAR WAS ISSUED IN OCTOBER 1994. 3. THE APPLICANT FROM 01.11.1994 HAD BEEN PAYING THE FREIGHT CHARGES AS PER THE LONGER ROUTE WITHOUT KNOWING ABOUT THE CHANGE IN THE RATIONALIZATION SCHEME. THE CONDUCT OF THE RESPONDENT IN NOT INFORMING ABOUT THE CHANGE HAS CAUSED FINANCIAL LOSS AND THE APPLICANT WAS MADE TO PART WITH HUGE AMOUNTS. THE RESPONDENT AS SUCH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REFUND OF THE EXCESS FREIGHT CHARGES FROM 01.11.1994. 4. THE APPLICANT AFTER COMING TO KNOW OF THE SAID FACT IN OCTOBER 1995 HAD DEMANDED REFUND OF THE EXCESS FREIGHT PAID AS UNDER. (I) CLAIM NOTICE DATED 19.01.96 FOR RS.1.18 CRORES FOR EXCESS FREIGHT PAID DURING 31.10.1994 TO 07.04.1995. (II) CLAIM NOTICE DATED 19.01.96 FOR RS.1.23 CRORES FOR EXCESS FREIGHT PAID FROM 31.10.94 TO 30.04.95. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE RESPONDENT OR ITS OPERATING STATIONS TO INFORM THE APPLICANT ABOUT THE CHANGE IN THE RATIONALIZATION, AND HAVING FAILED TO DO SO, THE CONDUCT OF THE RESPONDENT IN REJECTING THE CLAIMS OF THE APPLICANT FOR RS.1.18 CRORES AND 1.23 CRORES AS TIME-BARRED IS IMPROPER, ILLEGAL AND INVALID. THE ABOVE MENTIONED CLAIM NOTICES HAVE BEEN ISSUED WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGE IN THE RATIONALIZATION SCHEME. THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT THE NOTICE COULD NOT BE ISSUED WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF PAYMENT OR DELIVERY OF GOODS AS IT WAS NOT INFORMED ABOUT THE CHANGE IN THE RATIONALIZATION SCHEME EITHER BY THE RESPONDENT OR ITS OPERATING STATIONS. AS SUCH THE CLAIM NOTICES ARE ISSUED WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF KNOWLEDGE WHICH IS PROPER, VALID AND LEGAL AND AS SUCH PAYABLE WITH INTEREST AT 18 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF FREIGHT UP TO THE DATE OF REALIZATION OF THIS CLAIM.  20/Sep/2013  M/S RINL FILED THE SUIT IN RCT/SC BENCH CLAIMING REFUND ALLEGED EXCESS COLLECTION OF FREIGHT AMOUNTING RS 24100000 . THE RAILWAYS PLEAS WERE THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 106 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 WAS WAS NOT SERVED IN TIME AND THE CLAIM APPLICATION WASNOT FILED IN TIME ALSO THE SUIT CONSIGNMENT WAS CHARGED UNDER RATIONALISATION SCHEME. THE RESPONDENT ALSO DENIED THE JURISDICTION OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND THE CLAIM APPLICATION WILL COME UNDER THE JURISDECTION RAILWAY RATES TRIBUNAL/CHENNAI. RCT/SC HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THIS APPLICATION U/S 13 OF RCT ACT 1987 THIS CASE IS TIME BARRED AND ALSO SUIT BARRED NOW THE CASE IS PENDING IN RCT SC BENCH FOR DISPOSAL  04/Jan/2011  Yes  Yes  No  No
 83  OC/19/2001  2070300368 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  2192267  SE  RCT/SC  1. THE APPLICANT RINL HAS UTILIZED THE SERVICES OF THE RESPONDENT RAILWAYS FOR TRANSPORTATION OF IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS FROM VISAKHAPATNAM TO VARIOUS PLACES IN THE COUNTRY. THE APPLICANT WAS PAYING THE FREIGHT CHARGES AS AND WHEN THE BILLS WERE RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT. THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT THE ORIGINAL RAILWAY RECEIPTS WERE SURRENDERED TO THE RESPONDENT AND ONLY XEROX COPIES ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE APPLICANT. 2. THE FREIGHT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF MATERIALS WAS BEING CHARGED AS PER THE RATIONALIZED SCHEME GENERAL ORDER NO.1 OF 1990, ACCORDING TO WHICH THE FREIGHT CHARGES ARE CALCULATED AS PER THE LONGER ROUTE. THIS PRACTICE OF CHARGING FREIGHT AS PER THE LONGER ROUTE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER THE GOODS WERE TRANSPORTED BY THE SHORTEST ROUTE OR ANY ROUTE OPERATIONALLY FEASIBLE WAS IMPLEMENTED FROM THE YEAR 1990. THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN DISPATCHING THE FINISHED PRODUCTS TO CHANDIGARH (CDG), JALLANDHAR (DDL, SRX), MANDI GOVINDGARH (GVG), HISSAR ETC., LOCATED IN NORTHERN REGION BY RAIL. THE FREIGHT WAS BEING CHARGED AS PER PARA 5.1 OF THE RATIONALIZATION SECHME GENERAL ORDER NO.1 OF 1990 VIA GOODS AVOIDING LINE (GAL0. THE SAID PARA 5.1 HAS BEEN DELETED W.E.F 31.10.1994. AS SUCH THE FREIGHT WAS TO BE CHARGED AS PER PARA 5.2 OF THE RATIONALISATION SCHEME 1990 AND PARA 5.1OF REVISED RATIONALIZATION SCHEME 1995 I.E. THE FREIGHT WAS TO BE CHARGED VIA DELHI AVOIDING LINE (DAL). THE DELETION OF PARA 5.1 OF THE RATIONALIZATION SCHEME 1990 WAS NOT COMMUNICATED TO THE APPLICANT NOR THE OPERATING STATIONS WERE AWARE OF THE SAME. THOUGH THE PARA 5.1 OF THE RATIONALIZATION SCHEME 1990 WAS DELETED WITH EFFECT FROM 31.10.1994, THE RESPONDENT CONTINUED TO COLLECT THE FREIGHT CHARGES AS PER ROUTE STATED IN PARA 5.1. THIS APART, THOUGH RAILWAYS ISSUED THE REVISED RATIONALIZATION SCHEME VIDE SL NO.41 (G)/95/ DATED 25.4.1995, THE SAME WAS NOT IMPLEMENTED AND THE RESPONDENT COLLECTED FREIGHT CHARGES AS PER PARA 5.1 OF THE RATIONALIZATION SCHEME 1990 UP TO DECEMBER 1995. IT IS NECESSARY TO MENTION HERE THAT NEITHER THE RESPONDENT NOR ANY OF ITS OPERATING STATIONS GAVE EFFECT TO THE SAID CHANGES IN THE RATIONALIZATION SCHEME. EVEN THE APPLICANT WAS NOT INFORMED ABOUT THE LEVY OF FREIGHT CHARGES BY THE SHORTEST ROUTE, THOUGH THE CIRCULAR WAS ISSUED IN OCTOBER 1994. THE APPLICANT WITHOUT BEING AWARE OF THE CHANGE CONTINUED TO PAY FREIGHT CHARGES AS PER LONGER ROUTE CHARGED BY THE RESPONDENT. THE APPLICANT WAS USING THE SERVICES OF THE RESPONDENT ON A REGULAR BASIS AND WAS PAYING CRORES OF RUPEES TOWARDS FREIGHT CHARGES, AS SUCH THE RESPONDENT WAS DUTY BOUND TO INFORM THE APPLICANT ABOUT THE CHANGES MADE FROM TIME TO TIME. FOR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENT TO DO SO, THE APPLICANT CANNOT BE PENALIZED. THE APPLICANT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN SECOND WEEK OF OCTOBER 1995 CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE REVISED RATIONALIZATION SCHEME 1995. THE APPLICANT THOUGH INFORMED THE OPERATING STATIONS ABOUT THE SAID CHANGE, THE FREIGHT WAS COLLECTED AS PER THE LONGER ROUTE, UNTIL THE APPLICANT PROCURED A COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 05.01.1996 ISSUED BY CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER (RATES). THE RESPONDENT IMPLEMENTED THE CHANGES IN THE RATIONALIZATION SCHEME 1990 AND STARTED CHARGING FREIGHT BY THE SHORTER ROUTE ONLY FROM JANUARY 1996. 3. AS SUCH CLAIMS NOTICE ISSUED WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF KNOWLEDGE IS PROPER, VALID AND LEGAL. 4. THE RESPONDENT BY COLLECTING EXCESS FREIGHT, THOUGH BEING AWARE OF THE CHANGE IN THE RATIONALIZATION SCHEME HAS MADE UNDUE GAIN WHICH IS ILLEGAL AND IMPROPER AND IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS ILLEGAL ACT HAS PROCEEDED TO REJECT THE LEGAL AND VALID CLAIM OF THE APPLICANT ON IMPROPER GROUND.  20/Sep/2013  M/S RINL FILED THE SUIT IN RCT/SC BENCH CLAIMING REFUND ALLEGED EXCESS COLLECTION OF FREIGHT AMOUNTING RS 2192267 . THE RAILWAYS PLEAS WERE THAT THE CLAIM WAS TIME BARRED UNDER SECTION 106 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 THE CONSIGNMENT WAS CHARGED CORRECTLY AS PER PARA 5.1 OF RATIONALISATION SCHEME GENERAL ORDER NO 01 OF 1990 NOW THE CASE IS PENDING IN RCT SC BENCH FOR DISPOSAL  04/Jan/2011  Yes  Yes  No  No
 84  OC/215/2002  2070301032 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  979151  SE  RCT/BPL  CLAIM FOR 4 MISSING TW NOS. ER-32991, SE-29009, WR-40426, SR-33962, BOOKED VIDE RR NO.931154 DT.24.5.99, PREFERRED WITH SE RLY VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/SER/E/15/99-2000 DT.16.6.99. THESE TANKWAGONS WERE MET WITH AN ACCIDENT NEAR LANGIGARH, DIST. SAMBALPUR. CLAIM REGISTERED BY SE RLY VIDE REF. NO. WL/POL/CS/VZP/BSP/ 179/ SD/6/99. LOT OF REMINDERS SENT, BUT SE RLY NEITHER RESPONDED NOR SETTLED THE CLAIM TILL 2002. HENCE FINALLY SUIT WAS FILED IN RCT, BHOPAL.SE RLY PROPOSED VIDE LETTER DATED 20.5.2000 & 19.11.2008 THAT, THEY ARE READY TO SETTLE CLAIM FOR RS. 287866/-. THE SAME WAS NOT AGREED BY IOC. PROPOSAL REJECTED BY IOC VIDE LETTER DATED 27.5.2005 & 10.12.2008. DISPUTE PENDING. TILL DATE RCT,BHOPAL NOT DELIVERED JUDGMENT.  02/Dec/2010  THE SUBJECT CASE HAS BEEN SETTLED WITH UNCONNECTED TANK WAGONS ON VALUE BASIS AGAINEST NON DELIVARY OF FOUR TANK WAGONS. THE APPLICANT DID NOT AGREED TO SUCH ADJUSTMENT. NOW THE CASE ENTRUSTED TO RA/BPL SRI H.S.RAJPUT.  06/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 85  OC/216/2002  2070301033 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  251515  SE  RCT/BPL  CLAIM FOR 6 MISSING TW NOS. WR-40935, WR-40747, CR-49744, ER-62555, CR-46441, SE-28329, BOOKED VIDE RR NO.931152 DT.24.5.1999, PREFERRED WITH SE RLY VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/SER/E/13/99-2000 DT.16.6.99. CLAIM REGISTERED BY SE RLY VIDE REF. NO. LG/WL/POL/ CJ/HDCG/BSP/175 TO 181/SD/6/99 . SUBSEQUENTLY 5 TANKWAGONS RECEIVED EXCEPT SE-28329 AT LOCATION AND CLAIM REVISED VIDE LETTER DATED 5.7.99. THESE TANK WAGONS WERE MET WITH AN ACCIDENT NEAR LONGIGARH IN SAMBHALPUR DISTRICT OF ORISSA. LOT OF REMINDERS SENT, BUT SE RLY DID NOT RESPONDED AND SETTLE THE CLAIM TILL 2002. HENCE FINALLY SUIT WAS FILED IN RCT, BHOPAL.IN 2005, SE RLY VIDE LETTER DATED 6.12.2005 ADDRESSED TO PO AND COPY TO US ADVISED THAT, CLAIM SANCTIONED AND ADJUSTED AGAINST UNCONNECTED TANKWAGON DELIVERED AT BSP. IT IS NOT AGREEABLE TO IOC. TILL DATE RCT, BHOPAL NOT DELIVERED JUDGMENT.  02/Dec/2010  THE INSTANT CASE HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED TO RA/BPL MR. PRIYANK PATNI. THE CLAIM FOR NON DELIVERY OF TANK WAGON NO.SE-28329 HAS BEEN MATCH ADJUSTED WITH SIMILAR TANK WAGON ON WAGON TO WAGON BASIS. THE APPLICANT HAS REFUSED SUCH ADJUSTMENT AND CLAIMED COMPENSATION BY PAYMENT.  06/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 86  OC/217/2002  2070301034 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  1672743  SE  RCT/BPL  CLAIM FOR 7 MISSING TW NOS. ER-37091, ER-99322, WR-41208, CR-44184, WR-42788, NR-78702, WR-40316 BOOKED VIDE RR NO.931153 DT.24.5.1999, PREFERRED WITH SE RLY VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/SER/E/14/99-2000 DT.16.6.99. CLAIM REGISTERED BY SE RLY VIDE REF. NO. LG/WL/POL/ CJ/HDCG/BSP/117/SD/6/99 . THESE TANK WAGONS WERE MET WITH AN ACCIDENT NEAR LONGIGARH IN SAMBHALPUR DISTRICT OF ORISSA. LOT OF REMINDERS SENT, BUT SE RLY NEITHER RESPONDED NOR SETTLED THE CLAIM TILL 2002. HENCE FINALLY SUIT WAS FILED IN RCT, BHOPAL.IN 2005, SE RLY VIDE LETTER DATED 13.05.2005 INFORMED THAT, CASE IS UNDER FINAL SETTLEMENT. HOWEVER THEY DID NOT MADE PAYMENT YET. TILL DATE RCT, BHOPAL NOT DELIVERED JUDGMENT.  02/Dec/2010  THE CASE IS ENTRUSTED TO RA/BPL MR. S. TAPARIA. THE CLAIM FOR NON-DELIVERY OF SEVEN WAGONS (7) HAVE BEEN SETTLED WITH SIMILAR NO. OF UN-CONNECTED TANK WAGON ON WAGON TO WAGON BASIS. PARTY REFUSED TO ACCEPT SUCH ADJUSTMENT AND DEMANDED IMMEDIATE PAYMENT.  06/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 87  OC/219/2002  2070301046 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  1201841  SE  RCT/BPL  ON 23.5.99 ONE RAKE LOADED WITH WHITE OIL WAS LOADED FROM VIZAG FOR BILASPUR. THE DERAILMENT TOOK PLACE ON 25.5.99 AT LANGIGARH NEAR TITALAGARH, DIST : SAMBHALPUR AND 41 TANKWAGON DERAILED AND COMPLETELY BURNT. THE BREAKUP OF RAKE WAS AS IOC ¿MS 3+SKO 10+ HSD 25, IBP- SKO3, BPC- SKO-1+HSD1, HPC-MS-3+SKO5+HSD19. OUT OF THIS RAKE 26 TW WERE DECANTED AND 44 WERE UNDER FIRE. HENCE IOC PREFERRED THE NDC CLAIM OF THREE MS TANKWAGONS ¿ CR-44294, SE-28618, ER-60701 VIDE LETTER REF. NO. SD/SER/E/17/99-2000 DT. 16.6.99, FOR RS. 1837474/-. THE CLAIM WAS REVISED TO RS.1201841/- AFTER RECEIPT OF TW NO.CR-44294. RR NO. B 931156 DT.24.5.99.SE RLY ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECEIPT OF CLAIM VIDE LETTER REF.NO. WL/POL/CJ/VZP/BSP-181/SD/6/99. MANY REMINDERS SENT VIDE LETTERS DATED 30.9.99, 22.10.99, 29.11.99, 16.12.99, 4.1.2000, 9.2.2000, 29.2.2000, 11.5.2000, 30.8.2000. FINALLY SUIT WAS FILED IN RCT,BHOPAL IN 2002. AFTER THAT, SE RLY GIVEN OFFER OF OUT OF COURT SETTLEMENT VIDE LETTER REF.NO. RCT/BPL/117 / 02/TIM DT.26.5.2005. SAME WAS PROMPTLY AGREED & RESPONDED BY US VIDE LETTER DATED 06.06.2005. BY LETTER DATED 3.1.2006, 18.11.2008 S.E. RLY AGREED TO SETTLE THE CLAIM, BUT WANT TO ADJUST AGAINST UNCONNECTED TWS. THIS WAS REFUSED BY US VIDE LETTER DATED 2.12.2008. TILL DATE RCT NOT DELIVERED ANY JUDGMENT.  02/Dec/2010  THE INSTANT CASE IS ENTRUSTED TO RA/BPL MR. SUSHIL TAPARIA. THE CLAIM FOR NON-DELIVERY OF TWO TANK WAGONS VIZ. ER-60701 AND SE-28618 HAVE BEEN SETTLED WITH MATCH ADJUSTMENT OF TWO UN-CONNECTED TANK WAGONS ON VALUE BASIS. PARTY HAS REFUSED TO ACCEPT SUCH UNILATERAL ADJUSTMENT AND DEMANDED PAYMENT.  06/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 88  OC/218/2002  2070301047 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  1223879  SE  RCT/BPL  CLAIM FOR 5 MISSING TW NOS. CR-49644, ER-97391, SR-38095, WR-41132,SE-7727 BOOKED VIDE RR NO.931155 DT.24.5.99, PREFERRED WITH SE RLY VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/SER/E/16/99-2000 DT.16.6.99. THESE TANKWAGONS WERE MET WITH AN ACCIDENT NEAR LANGIGARH, DIST. SAMBALPUR. CLAIM REGISTERED BY SE RLY VIDE REF. NO. WL/POL/VZP/BSP/ 180/ SD/6/99. LOT OF REMINDERS SENT, BUT SE RLY NEITHER RESPONDED NOR SETTLED THE CLAIM TILL 2002. HENCE FINALLY SUIT WAS FILED IN RCT, BHOPAL.SE RLY PROPOSED VIDE LETTER DATED 05.07.2005 & 15.10.2008 THAT, THEY ARE READY TO SETTLE CLAIM FOR RS. 359745/-. THE SAME WAS NOT AGREED BY IOC. PROPOSAL REJECTED BY IOC VIDE LETTER DATED 26.5.2005 & 18.11.2008. DISPUTE PENDING. TILL DATE RCT,BHOPAL NOT DELIVERED JUDGMENT.  02/Dec/2010  THE CASE ENTRUSTED TO RA/BPL MR. S. TAPARIA. THE CLAIM FOR NON-DELIVERY OF 5(FIVE) TANK WAGONS HAVE BEEN SETTLED WITH UN-CONNECTED TANK WAGONS ON VALUE BASIS. THE APPLICANT DID NOT AGREE TO ACCEPT SUCH ADJUSTMENT AND DEMANDED IMMEDIATE PAYMENT.  06/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 89  OC/221/2002  2070301048 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  1197217  SE  RCT/BPL  CLAIM FOR 6 MISSING TW NOS. SE-77525, SE-77582, CR-46617, NR-73832, CR-100356, ER-61289 , BOOKED VIDE RR NO.931151 DT.24.5.99, PREFERRED WITH SE RLY VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/SER/E/12/99-2000 DT.16.6.99. THESE TANKWAGONS WERE MET WITH AN ACCIDENT NEAR LANGIGARH, DIST. SAMBALPUR. CLAIM REGISTERED BY SE RLY VIDE REF. NO. WL/POL/CS/VZP/BSP/ 176/ SD/6/99. TW NO. SE-77525 RECEIVED, HENCE CLAIM WAS REVISED FOR FIVE TANKWAGONS VIDE LETTER DATED 5.7.99. LOT OF REMINDERS SENT, BUT SE RLY NEITHER RESPONDED NOR SETTLE THE CLAIM TILL 2002. HENCE FINALLY SUIT WAS FILED IN RCT, BHOPAL.SE RLY VIDE LETTER DATED 15.10.2008 INFORMED THAT, TW NO. ER-61289 IS MATCH ADJUSTED AND OTHER FOUR TANKWAGONS ARE DELIVERED. BUT DECANTATION CERTIFICATE AND OTHER DETAILS NOT GIVEN. IOC ASKED FOR DETAILS VIDE LETTER DATED 18.11.2008. BUT SE RLY NOT GIVEN FURTHER DETAILS. HENCE CLAIM IS PENDING.TILL DATE RCT,BHOPAL NOT DELIVERED JUDGMENT.  02/Dec/2010  THE CASE ENTRUSTED TO RA/BPL MR S.TAPARIA. THIS IS A CASE OF NON DELIVARY OF FIVE(5) TANK WAGONS. THE CLAIM HAS BEEN SETTLED WITH UNCONNECTED TANK WAGONS WHICH HAS BEEN MATCH ADJUSTED WITH WAGONS TO WAGON BASIS .HOWEVER THE APPLICATION DID NOT AGREED TO SUCH MATCH ADJUSTMENT.  06/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 90  OC/440/2002  2070301135 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  226382  SE  RCT/BPL  CLAIM FOR MISSING TW NO. CR-47997 BOOKED VIDE RR NO. 57926 DT.1.11.99, PREFERRED WITH SE RLY VIDE LETTER REF. NO. SD/SE/E/02/2000-01 DATED 13.04.2000. NO REPLY RECEIVED FROM SE RAILWAY. HENCE FINALLY SUIT FILED IN RCT, BHOPAL IN 2002.CLAIM NOT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY SE RAILWAY. HOWEVER, REPLY FILED BY SE RLY REVEALED THAT, TW WAS PLACED FOR UNLOADING AT BHILAI ON 6.11.99 AND 30.11.99, BUT COULD NOT BE DECANTED DUE TO DEFECTIVE MASTER VALVE. MASTER VALVE COULD NOT BE OPENED. HENCE RAILWAY DISPATCHED TANKWAGON TO LOADING BASE HALDIA FOR TRANSSHIPMENT. TRANSSHIPMENT NOT DONE, BUT AFTER REPAIR TW AS BROUGHT TO BHILAI AGAIN ON 12.11.2001. ON JOINT VERIFICATION , IT IS OBSERVED THAT, TW IS CONTAINING PRODUCT WITH WATER CONTAMINATED. TW WAS NOT UNLOADED AND HANDED OVER TO RAILWAY FOR FURTHER DISPOSAL. RAILWAY BLAMING TO IOC ON THE BASIS OF SAID TO CONTAIN RR. BUT SINCE TW WAS BROUGHT BACK AFTER LAPSE OF TWO YEARS, RAILWAY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOSS AS TW WAS UNDER RAILWAY POSSESSION FOR TWO YEARS.TILL DATE RCT,BHOPAL NOT DELIVERED JUDGMENT.  02/Dec/2010  THE CASE IS ENTRUSTED TO RA /BPL SRI PRIYANK PATNI. THE CASE IS CONTESTED ON THE GROUND OF SHORT LOADING AT SIDING ITSELF AND THERE WAS NO CRIMINAL INTERFERENCE ENROUTE. THIS IS ON THE BASIS OF REPORTS OF CSC/SECR/BSP  06/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 91  OC/32/2001  2070301139 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  718731  SE  RCT/SC  1. THAT THE RESPONDENT RAILWAYS AS PART OF ITS SERVICE HAS BEEN TRANSPORTING IRON ORE FROM KIRANDUL (CHATTISGARH STATE) TO APPLICANT RINL AT THEIR VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT SIDING AT VISAKHAPATNAM. THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS CHARGED FREIGHT AT WAGONLOAD RATE INSTEAD OF TRAINLOAD RATE THEREBY COLLECTED EXCESS FREIGHT DURING NOVEMBER 1998, DECEMBER 1998, JANUARY 1999 AND FEBRUARY 1999. ACCORDING TO THE CIRCULAR OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 7-9-1998, WHENEVER TRAINLOAD INDENT IS PLACED THE FREIGHT HAS TO BE CHARGED AS PER THE TRAINLOAD RATE. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT THE RAIL USER SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR THE MISTAKE OF THE RAILWAYS. THAT IN THE CASE OF 22 RAKES TRANSPORTED DURING THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 1998, DECEMBER 1998, JANUARY 1999 AND FEBRUARY 1999, THE RESPONDENT HAS CHARGED FREIGHT ON WAGONLOAD BASIS. OUT OF THE 22 RAKES, 13 RAKES WERE SUPPLIED WITH LESS NUMBER OF BOX-N-WAGON AND 9 RAKES WERE OF COMBINATION OF BOX-N AND BOY WAGONS. THE RESPONDENT CHARGED FREIGHT ON WAGONLOAD BASIS INSTEAD OF TRAINLOAD BASIS BECAUSE OF LESS NUMBER OF WAGONS IN SOME RAKES AND COMBINATION OF BOX-N AND BOY WAGONS IN SOME OTHER RAKES. THE RESPONDENT FAILED TO SEE THAT THE SAID MISTAKE WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO IT AND NOT TO THE APPLICANT. THE SAID FACT WAS INTIMATED TO THE RESPONDENT AND THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL OPERATIONS MANAGER, SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY (WALTAIR) BY HIS LETTER DATED 30.4.1999 ADDRESSED TO THE CHIEF FREIGHT TRAFFIC MANAGER, SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY, CALCUTTA RECOMMENDED TO CHARGE FREIGHT IN RESPECT OF THE 22 RAKES AS PER TRAIN LOAD RATE AS ALL THE RAKES WERE SUPPLIED BY THE RAILWAYS AND THERE WAS NO MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT. 2. THAT THE RESPONDENT HAVING SETTLED THE CLAIM IN RESPECT OF RAKES WITH LESS NUMBER OF WAGONS FAILED TO SETTLE THE CLAIM IN RESPECT OF RAKES WITH MIXED WAGONS. THE APPLICANT TO GET THE BENEFIT OF TRAINLOAD RATE HAD PLACED TRAINLOAD INDENT/FULL RAKE. HOWEVER, THE RESPONDENT SUPPLIED MIXED WAGONS I.E., BOX-N AND BOY WAGON FOR REASONS BETTER KNOWN TO IT. THE APPLICANT WAS PENALIZED AND HAD TO PAY EXCESS FREIGHT DUE TO THE LAPSES ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENT. AS PER THE CIRCULARS AND THE RAILWAY RULES, FOR ANY LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE RAILWAYS, THE RAIL USERS SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED. THE APPLICANT AS SUCH IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,89,928/- BEING THE EXCESS FREIGHT COLLECTED BY THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE 9 RAKES PLUS INTEREST @18% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF FREIGHT UP TO THE DATE OF REALIZATION OF THIS CLAIM.. 3. THAT THE CLAIM NOTICE DATED 17/19.5.99 ISSUED BY THE APPLICANT IS WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF FREIGHT CHARGES AS THE PAYMENT FOR THE EARLIEST BILL IN DISPUTE WAS MADE ON 22.1.1999. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM IS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION.  20/Sep/2013  M/S RINL FILED THE SUIT IN RCT/SC BENCH CLAIMING REFUND OF RS 718731 FOR ALLEGED EXCESS COLLECTION OF FREIGHT FOR THE CONSIGNMENT OF IRON ORE BOOKED EX-KIRANDUL TO VSKP STEEL PLANT REALATED WITH INVOICE NO 221/054968 DATED 27.12.98 THEIR ALLEGATION WAS THAT THOUGH THEY HAD INDENTED FOR TRAIN LOAD RATE BUT RAILWAY CHARGED FOR WAGON LOAD RATE WHICH IS THE HIGHER THAN TRAIN LOADRATE. THIS RAILWAY DEFENDED THE CASE . TAKING THE PLEAS THAT LOAD RATE CAN BE ALLOWED ONLY IN CASE OF MIXED RAKES FORMED COMBINATION OF NBOX WITH BFR/BRH. THIS RAILWAY COLLECTED TRAIN LOAD RATE AS PER RLY BOARD CIRCULAR VIDE NO 73/G/98 DATED 07.09.98. NOW THE CASE IS PENDING IN RCT SC BENCH FOR DISPOSAL  04/Jan/2011  Yes  Yes  No  No
 92  OC/14/2003  2070301437 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  246167  SE  RCT/BPL  CLAIM FOR MISSING TW NO. CR-44456 BOOKED VIDE RR NO.87271 DT.25.2.2000, PREFERRED WITH SE RLY VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/SER/E/8/2000-01 DT.12.7.2000. CLAIM REGISTERED BY SE RLY VIDE REF. NO. LG/WLPOL/SD/BSP/ 10003538/08/2000-01. LOT OF REMINDERS SENT, BUT SE RLY DID NOT RESPONDED AND SETTLE THE CLAIM TILL 2003. HENCE FINALLY SUIT WAS FILED IN RCT, BHOPAL.SE RLY IN THEIR STATEMENT FILED IN RCT STATED THAT, TANKWAGON MISDELIVERED TO BPC,BHILAI ON 19.3.2000. BASED ON STATEMENT WE ARE FOLLOWING UP WITH BPC TO SIGN MSJC, BUT TILL DATE BPC HAS NOT SIGNED JC. BPC NEEDS INSTRUCTION FROM SE RLY TO TAKE ACTION OF SIGNING OF JC.TILL DATE RCT,BHOPAL NOT DELIVERED JUDGMENT.  02/Dec/2010  THE CASE ENTRASTED TO RA /BPL SRI PRIYANK PATNI. IOC MUTUALLY SETTLED THIS CASE WITH BPCL AUTHORITY SINCE THE SUIT WAGON (CR 44456) WAS CONSUMED BY BPCL. THE CASE NOT YET WITHDRAWN  06/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 93  OA/454/2005  2070700138 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  410172  SE  RCT/CCC  IT IS A SHORTAGE CLAIM AGAINST TW BOOKED EX HLD TO NJP & DELIVERED. THE CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION LODGED WITH RAILWAYS AS WELL AS BEFORE RCT WITHIN TIME.  30/Jul/2010  INSTANT APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED FOR RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION CLAIM. THE APPLICANT HAS IMPLEADED BOTH S.E.RLY AND N.F.RAILWAY. AS PER STATEMENT MADE IN SUB-PARA(G) OF PARA-7(1) OF THE APPLICATION ,THE APPLICANT HAS RELIED UP THE NOTICE U/S 106 OF RAILWAYS ACT,1989 SERVED OF N.F.RLY. HENCE THE APPLICATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE U/S 107 OF THE RLYS ACT AGAINEST S.E.RLY.  05/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 94  OA/432/2006  2070700205 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  221977  SE  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 11-NOV-14 in favour of Party  ONE MS WAGON NO. CR 1926050 BOOKED FROM IOCL, HALDIA TO BPCL, RANCHI ON 02.06.2004 AND HAD ARRIVED DESTINATION ON 11.09.2004 I.E. AFTER A LAPSE OF 3 MONTHS WHEN THE NORMAL TRANSIT PERIOD REQUIRES 2 DAYS ONLY. WAGON ARRIVED WITHOUT TOP AND BOTTOM SEALS AND BPCL MADE APPEAL FOR JOINT CHECKING BUT RLY. DID NOT RESPOND. IN VIEW OF SAFETY/SECURITY, AS THE WAGON COULD NOT BE STRANDED FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD, AS PER INDUSTRY¿S NORMS, ONE JOINT CHECKING WAS CONDUCTED WITH OTHER OIL INDUSTRY MEMBER AND FOUND A SHORTAGE OF 8092 LITERS MS. PRODUCT WAS BOOKED UNDER ¿RLY RISK¿ RATE AS PER RR COPY. MISSING SEALS AND ABNORMAL TRANSIT PERIOD PROVES THE GROSS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF RLY WHEN THE PRODUCT WAS UNDER RLY CUSTODY. MOREOVER, RLY CANNOT DENY THEIR LIABILITY ON THE GROUND OF SWA (SENDER¿S WEIGHT ACCEPTED) REMARKS IN RR, SINCE THAT PERIOD 3 NO. OF RLY STAFF WERE PAID AT BPCL SIDING, HALDIA. THE LOADING CHART (CTCC CHART) PRODUCED BY BPCL IS NOT THEIR OWN COMPUTERIZED DOCUMENT BUT IT IS THE DOCUMENT PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF CALIBRATION DATA JOINTLY INSPECTED BY RLY / TANK WAGON MANUFACTURING COMPANY / OIL COMPANY REPRESENTATIVES. BPCL DO THIS JOB AS A COORDINATOR ON ALL INDIA BASIS WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY NOMINATED BY RAILWAYS AND OTHER OIL INDUSTRY MEMBERS. THE FIRST COPY OF THESE CHARTS ALWAYS IS SENT TO THE GENERAL SECRETARY, INDIAN RAILWAY CONFERENCE ASSOCIATION (IRCA), NEW DELHI. THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY IS THE CHAIRMAN OF CTCC WHO IS ALSO AN OFFICIAL IN M/S. BPCL.  13/Jul/2010  IT IS A CLAIM FOR SHORT DEIVERY OF 8092 LTS M.S BOOKED EX HALDIA TO RANCHI. THE GOODS ARRIVED AT DESTINATION STATION AND WAS DECANTED BY BPCL ON 11.09.04. THE TRANSIT DELAY IS THERE IN THIS CASE .NEITHER THE THE DDM NOR A MGR WAS ISSUED IN THIS CASE. RRWAS ISSUED WITH REMARKS "LOADING AND DIP MEASUREMENT WAS NOT WITNESSED"AND "SAW","SC". THE RAILWAY IS CONTESTING THE CASE SEEKING PROTECTION U/S 65(2) OF THE RAILWAYS ACT , 1989. THE MATTER IS STILL PENDING FOR A DECISION OF THE RCT/CCC.  26/Jul/2010  No  No  No  No
 95  OR/9/2007  2070700215 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  370824  SE  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 17-JUN-04 in favour of Party  Due to Railway problem Rake was diverted from longer distance to shorter distance. But freight realized for both the destination. Thus IOC¿s Freight claim against ORR is justified.  30/Jul/2010  IT IS A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF FERIGHT. IN SUCH CASES NOTICED U/S 106 (3) OF RAILWAYS ACT IS MANDATORY. THE APPLICANT DID NOT SERVED ANY NOTICE FOR THIS PURPOSE. HENCE THE CASE IS NOT MENTAINABLE U/S 107 OF RAILWAYS ACT. AT THE OUT SET IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT OTHER TWO APPLICATIONS OF SIMILER NATURE OF THE IOL (NO REF/07/07 & REF/08/07) HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY THE RCT/KOL BENCH ON THE SAID GROUND.  05/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 96  OA/838/2004  2070700654 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  376509  SE  RCT/CCC  THE CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION LODGED WITH RAILWAYS AS WELL AS BEFORE RCT WITHIN TIME. THUS IOC¿S CLAIM FOR MISSING TW IS JUSTIFIED.  02/Aug/2010  IT IS A CLAIM FOR NONDELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT. BUT THE CONSIGNMENT IN QUESTION ARRIVED AT DESTINATION STATION AND DELIVERED TO THE APPLICANT ON 28.9.2002.HENCE THE CLAIM APPLICATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN ITS PRESENT FORM. THE APPLICANT CANNOT GO BEYOND HIS PLEADING AND HE HAS TO PROVE THAT IT IS A CASE OF NON - DELIVERY.  05/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 97  OA/136/2007  2070700737 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  89741  SE  RCT/BPL  CLAIM FOR MISSING TANKWAGON OF TW NO. NE-222, BOOKED VIDE RR NO.971544 DT.19.05.2004, PREFERRED WITH SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RLY VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/SECR/E/04/2004-05 DT.14.10.2004 FOR ` 744266/-. SECR ACKNOWLEDGED THE CLAIM VIDE LETTER REF.NO. FG/SECR/MCS/BSP/10404698/11/2004-05 DATED 02.11.2004. TW WAS DELIVERED TO LOCATION ON 28.05.2005 AFTER LAPSE OF 12 MONTHS AND OPEN DELIVERY OBTAINED AND OBSERVED SHORTAGE OF 3.258 KL AMOUNTING TO ` 89742/-. CLAIM WAS REVISED VIDE OUR LETTER REF.NO. SD/SECR/L/02/05-06 DT.28.06.2005. SECR DID NOT RESPONDED, HENCE IN ORDER TO PROTECT IOC INTEREST SUIT FILED IN RCT, BHOPAL IN 2007. TILL DATE RCT, BHOPAL NOT YET DELIVERED JUDGMENT.  02/Dec/2010  THE APPLICATION IS MISCONCEIVED AND IS NOT MAINTAINABLE SINCE NEITHER THE FORWARDING STATION PANESWADI NOR THE DESTINATION STATION BRS PRESENTLY LIES WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF SE RAILWAY. THE BOOKING OF THE CONSIGNMENT BEING 19.05.2004, THE RESPONDENT RAILWAY CEASES TO EXIST AS THE CONTROLLING RAILWAY ADMM WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2003 DATE OF TRIFURCATION. THE NOTICE U/S 106 DATED 14.10.2004 HAVE BEEN SERVED ON S.E.C RAILWAY ON WHOSE JURISDICTION THE DESTINATION STATION LIES AS PER SEC 107 THE CA IS NOT MAINTAINABLE ON S.E.RLY.  14/Sep/2010  No  No  No  No
 98  OA/704/1996  2070700810 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  434756  SE  RCT/BPL  CLAIM FOR MISSING TWS NOS. CR-45609 & ER-60100 , WHICH WERE BOOKED VIDE RR NO. 409114 DT.26.9.93, PREFERRED WITH SE RLY VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/ASK/SER/E/54/93-94 DT.07.03.1994. TILL 1996 SE RLY DID NOT RESPONDED, HENCE SUIT WAS FILED IN RCT, BHOPAL.IN 1998 CHIEF LAW ASSTT INFORMED THAT, TW NO. CR-45609 DELIVERED ON 13.2.94 & TW NO. ER-60100 MIS-DELIVERED TO SSE, VARANASI, NORTHERN RAILWAY AND ADVISED TO FOLLOW WITH N. RLY TO GET P.O. IN 2005, SE RLY OFFERED FOR OUT OF COURT SETTLEMENT OF CASE FOR RS.147887/-. SAME WAS AGREED BY IOC, BUT RAILWAY NOT ISSUED ANY PAYMENT. TILL DATE RCT,BHOPAL NOT DELIVERED JUDGMENT.  02/Dec/2010  THE INSTANT CASE IS ENTRUSTED TO RA/BPL SRI H. S. RAJPUT. THE CLAIM FOR NON-DELIVERY OF TANK WAGONS NO.CR-45609 AND ER-60100 HAVE BEEN SETTLED BY MATCH ADJUSTMENT WITH A UN-CONNECTED TANK WAGONS. PARTY REFUSED TO ACCEPT SUCH UNILATERAL ADJUSTMENT AND DEMANDED PAYMENT.  06/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 99  OA/45/2008  2070701292 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  7762475  SE  RCT/CCC  CLAIM ACCEPTED BY RAILWAYS BUT AMOUNT HAS BEEN ADJUSTED UNILATERALLY FOR WHICH CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE RCT IS SUBJUDICED.  30/Jul/2010  IT IS A CLAIM FOR NON DELIVERY OF 11 TANK WAGONS OF HSD BOOKED FROM HALDIA TO ROURKELA.ENQUIRY REVEALS THAT CONTENTS OF ALL 11 WAGONS WERE CONSUMED BY LOCO JSG AND ACCORDINGLY THE CLAIM WAS SETTLED BY MATCH ADJUSTMENT AGAINST CONSIGNMENTS CONSUMED BY THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AS UNCONNENTED. RAILWAY IS CONTESTING THE CASE ON THE ABOVE GROUND AND THE MATTER IS STILL PENDING FOR A DECISION OF THE RCT/KOL.  09/Jul/2010  No  No  No  No
 100  OA/284/1993  2071000002 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  2526815  SE  RCT/BPL  19 CLAIM/S FOR 19 MISSING TWS (10 SKO+9HSD) BOOKED ON 26.5.90 PREFERRED WITH SE RLY VIDE LETTER REF.NO.SD/SER/E/65-74/90-91 DT.5.11.90, SD/SER/E/75-77/90-91 DT.9.11.90 & SD/SER/E/79-84 DT.12.11.90. TILL 1993 SE RLY NOT RESPONDED, HENCE SUIT WAS FILED IN RCT,BHOPAL.IN RCT SE RLY FILED REPLY AND ONLY RAISE OBJECTION OF NOT TAKING CLEARANCE OF HIGH POWERED COMMITTEE.TILL DATE RCT,BHOPAL NOT DELIVERED JUDGMENT.  02/Dec/2010  FACTUALY THE CASE IS WEAK ON MERIT SINCE ALL THE 19 (NINTEEN) TANK WAGONS WERE INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT NEAR THE KESINGA ON 26/05/90 HOWEVER THE CASE IS BEING CONTESTED ON THE GROUND OF LIMITATION THE DATE OF LOADING IS 25/05/90 WHERE AS DATE OF FILING IS 14/06/93 .THE APPLICANT HAS NOT FILED ANY CONDONATION OF DELAY PETITION U/S 17(2) OF RCT ACT,1987  05/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 101  OA/220/2002  2071000003 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  1430328  SE  RCT/BPL  CLAIM FOR 6 MISSING TW NOS. ER-98327, ER-61538, ER-93540, NR-73703, ER-60948, CR-46977 , BOOKED VIDE RR NO.931150 DT.24.5.99, PREFERRED WITH SE RLY VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/SER/E/11/99-2000 DT.16.6.99. THESE TANKWAGONS WERE MET WITH AN ACCIDENT NEAR LANGIGARH, DIST. SAMBALPUR. CLAIM REGISTERED BY SE RLY VIDE REF. NO. WL/POL/CS/VZP/BSP/ 175/ SD/6/99. LOT OF REMINDERS SENT, BUT SE RLY DID NOT RESPONDED AND SETTLE THE CLAIM TILL 2002. HENCE FINALLY SUIT WAS FILED IN RCT, BHOPAL.SE RLY INFORMED TO PO RCT,BHOPAL VIDE LETTER DATED 15.10.2008 THAT, INSTANT CASE WAS MATCH ADJUSTED WITH RAILWAY DUES, HOWEVER APPLICANT DID NOT AGREE FOR SUCH ADJUSTMENT.. IOC REPLIED TO THIS LETTER VIDE LETTER DATED 18.11.2008 THAT, PROPOSAL SHALL BE ACCEPTED SUBJECT TO RAILWAY GIVE DETAILS OF PARENTAGE OF UNCONNECTED TANKWAGONS. TILL DATE RCT,BHOPAL NOT DELIVERED JUDGMENT.  02/Dec/2010  THE INSTANT CLAIM OF THE APPLICANT WAS INITIALLY ADJUSTED WITH RLY DUES HOWEVER SINCE THE APPICANT DID NOT AGREE TO SUCH ADJUSTMENT AND REQUESTED THE RAILWAY TO ARRANGE PAYMENT ,THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO RLY BOARDS AS PER FINANCE ADVICE ACCORDINGLY RLY BOARDS REQUESTED THE CHAIRMAN IOC TO ACCEPT SUCH ADJUSTMENT VIDE THEIR LETTER NO 2005/TC-III/18/4 DATED 04/10/05. A REPLY FROM IOC IS STILL AWAITED  05/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 102  OA/14/2008  2071000004 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  152774  SE  RCT/BPL  CLAIM FOR MISSING TW NO. SE-77047, BOOKED VIDE RR NO.C/370919 DT.14.05.05, PREFERRED WITH SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RLY VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/SECR/E/02/2005-06 DT.02.09.2005. SECR ACKNOWLEDGED REGISTERED CLAIM VIDE REF NO. 1140500652. THEREAFTER TW RECEIVED AT BHILAI DEPOT ON 28.11.2005 AFTER LAPSE OF AROUND 6 MONTHS. OPEN DELIVERY OBTAINED AS TW REPORTED AFTER LAPSE OF QUITE LONG PERIOD. IN JOINT DIPPING OBSERVED LOSS OF 9230 LTRS. ACCORDINGLY, THEN CLAIM WAS REVISED TO SHORTAGE CLAIM VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/SECR/L/08/05-06 DATED 19.12.2005 FOR ABOVE SAID AMOUNT. SECR THEREAFTER RESPONDED VIDE LETTER DATED 10.01.2008 AND INFORMED THAT IT IS UNDER ENQUIRY. TO PROTECT IOC INTEREST SUIT FILED IN RCT IN 2008.TILL DATE RCT, BHOPAL NOT YET DELIVERED JUDGMENT.  25/Mar/2011  THE CLAIM APPLICATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE ON THIS RAILWAY SINCE DESTINATION STATION BHILAI PRESENTLY LIES OVER SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY. THE DATE OF BOOKING BEING 14.05.2005 THE RESPONDENT RAILWAY CEASES TO EXIST AS THE CONTROLLING RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2003 (THE DATE OF TRIFURCATION). THIS APART, AS PER SECTION 107 OF RAILWAYS ACT, 1989 THE APPLICANT CANNOT FILE AN APPLICATION AGAINST THIS RAILWAY SINCE NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 106 OF RAILWAYS ACT, 1989 HAS BEEN FILED ON THIS RAILWAY. INCIDENTALLY IT IS STATED THAT NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED ON SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, BILASPUR IN THIS CASE.  05/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 103  OA/272/2007  2071000005 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  405375  SE  RCT/BPL  CLAIM FOR LEAKAGE/SHORTAGE OF TW NO. NR-95354, WCR-315231, WR-906698, BOOKED VIDE RR NO.A/786401 DT.18.11.2005, PREFERRED WITH SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RLY VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/SECR/L/07/2005-06 DT.13.12.2005 FOR LOSS OF 14.865 KL AMOUNTING TO ` 405375/-. SECR ACKNOWLEDGED REGISTERED CLAIM VIDE LETTER REF NO. Y/POL/BSPR/BSPA-1140500942/01/05-06 DATED 27.04.2006 AND VIDE LETTER DATED 19.02.2007 ADVISED REPUDIATION OF CLAIM . HENCE IN ORDER TO PROTECT IOC INTEREST SUIT FILED IN RCT, BHOPAL IN 2007. TILL DATE RCT, BHOPAL NOT YET DELIVERED JUDGMENT.  02/Dec/2010  THE CLAIM APPLICATION IS MISCONCEIVED AND IS NOT MAINTAINABLE OVER THIS RAILWAY SINCE NEITHER THE FORWARDING STATION (BONGAIGAON) NOT THE DESTINATION STATION (BISRAMPUR) PRESENTLY DO NOT LIES IN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF S.E.RAILWAY WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2003(DATE OF TRIFURCATION). IN THIS CASE NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED ON SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, BILSPUR AS PER SECTION 107 OF RAILWAYS ACT, 1989. NO APPLICATION CAN BE FILED AGAINST A RAILWAY ON WHOM NO NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED. HENCE THE CA IS NOT MAINTAINABLE ON THIS RAILWAY.  05/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 104  OA/252/2007  2071000006 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  84622  SE  RCT/BPL  CLAIM FOR MISSING TW NO. CR-44357, BOOKED VIDE RR NO.C/320940 DT.11.02.2003, PREFERRED WITH SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RLY VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/SECR/E/01/2003-04 DT.21.07.2003. SECR ACKNOWLEDGED CLAIM VIDE LETTER REF.NO. FG/SECR/UC5/BSP/10303583 /08/2003-04 DT.08.08.2003. THEREAFTER TW RECEIVED AT BISHRAMPUR DEPOT ON 28.09.2004 AFTER LAPSE OF AROUND 20 MONTHS. OPEN DELIVERY OBTAINED AS TW REPORTED AFTER LAPSE OF QUITE LONG PERIOD. IN JOINT DIPPING OBSERVED LOSS OF 4706 LTRS. ACCORDINGLY, THEN CLAIM WAS REVISED TO SHORTAGE CLAIM VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/SECR/L/01/04-05 DATED 14.10.2004 FOR ABOVESAID AMOUNT. SECR DID NOT RESPONDED THEN SUIT FILED IN RCT IN 2007.TILL DATE RCT, BHOPAL NOT YET DELIVERED JUDGMENT.  25/Mar/2011  ;THIS IS A CLAIM CASE SHORTAGE OF SKO. THE CLAIM APPLICATION IS PALPABLY BARRED BY LAW OF LIMITATION SINCE THE DATE OF BOOKING BEING 16.02.2003 WHILE THE DATE OF FILING IN THE RCT BEING 25.09.2007 AGAIN NEITHER THE FORWARDING STATION THAT IS VIZAG NOR THE DESTINATION STATION BISRAMPUR PRESENTLY DOES NOT LIES WITHIN THE TERRITORIES OF SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAYWITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2003.  05/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 105  OA/249/2001  2071000008 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  3316265  SE  RCT/BPL  INITIALLY CLAIM FOR 37 MISSING TANKWAGONS WERE PREFERRED VIDE LETTER REF. NO. SD/GD/SER/E /39/98-99 DT.4.12.1998 DUE TO RAKE BOOKED VIDE RR NO. 477282 DT.28.11.98 WAS DERAILED AT DUNDI NEAR JABALPUR. SUBSEQUENTLY 30 TANKWAGONS WERE RECEIVED AT LOCATION. BUT 7 TANKWAGONS NOS.SE 77011, CR 49680, CR 46620, SC 29250, CR 100260, WR 40957, CR 49702 WERE REMAINED STRANDED AT DUNDI AND REPORTED PRODUCT LOSS. HENCE CLAIM WAS REVISED TO RS.2438431/- ON 28.2.2000. LOT OF REMINDERS SENT, BUT CLAIM WAS NOT SETTLED BY SE RLY. THEREFORE FINALLY SUIT WAS FILED IN RCT,BHOPAL IN 2001. IN 2005, SE RLY OFFERED FOR OUT OF COURT SETTLEMENT FOR RS.18,10,322/-. THIS WAS REJECTED BY IOC DUE TO IT WAS NOT MEETING TO THE ACTUAL VALUE OF PRODUCT LOSS.TILL DATE RCT,BHOPAL NOT DELIVERED JUDGMENT.  02/Dec/2010  IN THE CASE SPECIFIC REPLY HAS BEEN FILED IN THE RCT THAT THE CLAIM OF THE APPLICANT FOR NON DELIVARY OF TANK WAGONS CONTAINING HSD HAS BEEN MATCH ADJUSTED WITH SIMILAR NUMBER OF TANK WAGONS DELIVERED TO IOC ON DIFFERENT DATES ALL THE SUIT WAGONS INVOLVED IN ACCIDENT ON C.RLY IN 1996  05/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 106  OA/1/2008  2071000125 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  182015  SE  RCT/BPL  THE TW. NO SE 95485 LDD WITH 22940 LITRES OF FURNACE OIL WAS NOT DELIVERED AT DESTINATION.SO CLAIM FOR NON-RECEIPT WAS PREFERRED VIDE LETTER NO.W.LOG.FRT.4.FO 2005-06/1 DT. 25.4.05 FOR RS. 291128.00. SUBSEQUENTLY CCM (REFUNDS) SERLY VIDE LETTER NO. RGF/SER/HDCG-BIA/1062/PP/8/05 DT. 22.11.05 ADVISED US THAT OUR CLAIM LETTER DT.25.4.05 WAS BEING FORWARDED TO SECRLY BILASPUR FOR NA. SECRLY VIDE LETTER REF. CLAIM NO.1140500173/05/05-06 DT. 6.6.06 ADVISED US THAT THE TW WAS DELIVERED AT DESTINATION ON 7.11.05 I.E AFTER A GAP OF MORE THAN 8 MONTHS.SINCE THE TW WAS DECANTED WITH TOP AND BOTTOM MANHOLE SEALS MISSING, WE AMENDED OUR ND CLAIM TO SHORT RECIEPT OF 13717 LITRES INCURRED VIDE OUR LETTER DATED 29.12.05.WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT RAILWAYS FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THEM FAILED TO CHECK PHYSICALLY THE QUANTITY LOADED AND ISSUED RAILWAY RECEIPT BEARING REMARK SAID TO CONTAIN RAILWAYS WERE FREE TO VERIFY OR SUPERVISE THE LOADING AND FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE RAILWAYS TO VERIFY OR SUPERVISE THE LOADING CANNOT BE THE GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF THIS CORPORATIONS CLAIM. ALSO THE TANKWAGON WAS DELIVERED AT DESTINATION AFTER A GAP OF NEARLY 8 MONTHS IN MANHOLE SEALS AND BOTTOM SEALS MISSING CONDITION. THIS PROVES INTERFERENCE TO THE WAGON WHEN IN CUSTODY OF THE RAILWAYS. THE JOINT DIP TAKEN AT THE DESTINATION CERTIFIES THE CONDITION OF THE CONSIGNMENT AND THE SHORTAGE INCURRED.  25/Oct/2010  THE APPLICATION IS MISCONCEIVED AND IS NOT MAINTAINABLE SINCE THE DESTINATION STATION BIA LIES WITH IN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF OF S.E.C.RLY. THAT NOTICE UNDER SEC 106 SHOULD HAVE BEEN SERVED ON S.E.C. RLY.ON WHOSE TERITORIAL JURISDICTION THE DESTINATION STATION LIES. THAT S.E.C RLY CAME INTO BEING W.E.F 01.04.2003. THE COSIGNMENT BOOKED ON 22.12.04. HENCE NOTICE AS WELL AS CA HAD TO BE FILLED ON S.E.C.RLY.FURTHER MORE THE CA IS PALPABLY BARRED BY LAW OF LIMITATION SECTION 17(2).THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED ON 22.12.04 UNDER RR NO 370789 WHERE AS THE INSTANT CA HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 07.01.08.HENCE THE CA IS SUIT BARRED.  13/Sep/2010  No  No  No  No
 107  OA/16/2008  2071000127 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  148450  SE  RCT/BPL  THE TW. NO NR 78730 LDD WITH 21830 LITRES OF FURNACE OIL WAS NOT DELIVERED AT DESTINATION.SO CLAIM FOR NON-RECEIPT WAS PREFERRED VIDE LETTER NO.W.LOG.FRT.4.FO 2005-06/4 DT. 13.7.05 FOR RS. 316935. SUBSEQUENTLY THE TW WAS DELIVERED AT DESTINATION ON 7.11.05 I.E AFTER A GAP OF MORE THAN 8 MONTHS WITH TOP AND BOTTOM SEALS MISSING. WE THEREFORE AMENDED OUR ND CLAIM TO SHORT RECIEPT OF 10225 LITRES INCURRED IN THE TW VIDE OUR LETTER DATED 29.12.05. THE SHORTAGE CLAIM WAS ACKNOWLEDGED VIDE SECRLYS., LETTER NO.Y/POL/OSCL/BIA/BSPA-11405000534/09/2005-06 DT 2/11/06. WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT RAILWAYS FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THEM FAILED TO CHECK PHYSICALLY THE QUANTITY LOADED AND ISSUED RAILWAY RECEIPT BEARING REMARK SAID TO CONTAIN RAILWAYS WERE FREE TO VERIFY/SUPERVISE THE LOADING AND FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE RAILWAYS TO VERIFY/SUPERVISE THE LOADING CANNOT BE THE GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF THIS CORPORATIONS CLAIM. ALSO THE TANKWAGON WAS DELIVERED AT DESTINATION AFTER A GAP OF NEARLY 8 MONTHS IN MANHOLE SEALS AND BOTTOM SEALS MISSING CONDITION. THIS PROVES INTERFERENCE TO THE WAGON WHEN IN CUSTODY OF THE RAILWAYS. THE JOINT DIP TAKEN AT THE DESTINATION CERTIFIES THE CONDITION OF THE CONSIGNMENT AND THE SHORTAGE INCURRED.  25/Oct/2010  THE APPLICATION IS MISCONCEIVED AND IS NOT MAINTAINABLE SINCE THE DESTINATION STATION BIA LIES WITH IN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF OF S.E.C.RLY. THAT NOTICE UNDER SEC 106 SHOULD HAVE BEEN SERVED ON S.E.C. RLY.ON WHOSE TERITORIAL JURISDICTION THE DESTINATION STATION LIES. THAT SEC RLY CAME INTO BEING W.E.F 01.04.2003 THE COSIGNMENT BOOKED ON 30.03.05. HENCE NOTICE AS WELL AS CA HAD TO BE FILLED ON S.E.C.RLY.  13/Sep/2010  No  No  No  No
 108  OC/37/2000  2080000209 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  39426  WR  Case Settled by RCT AHMEDABAD on 11-FEB-14 in favour of Party  AS PER SHORTAGE CERTIFICAT LEAKAGE WAS OBSERVED FROM BOTTOM. THIS CLAIM WAS REJECTED IN RCT & HENCE TAKEN UP WITH HIGH COURT. AS PER HIGH COURT RCT HAD NOT CONSIDERED EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY PRESENT APPLECANT. THE MATTER WAS REDIRECTED TO RCT TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERING IT AGAIN.  12/Jan/2011  1 THE LOADING OF SUBJECT TANK WAGON WAS DONE BY SENDER AND SAME WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF. THE DIP MEASUREMENT OF THE LOADED CONTENTS FIXING OF VALVES AND SEALS DONE BY SENDERS STAFF. 2 TANK WAGON WAS REACHED ON 05.06.1997 AND RECEIVED AT DESTINATION ON 06.06.1997. HENCE THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF INTERFERENCE ENROUTE WHICH PROVES THAT WHATEVER LOADED BY THE SENDER HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THE DESTINATION WHITHIN ONE DAY AND DELIVERED.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 109  OC/95/1999  2080100046 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  56533  WR  HC/AMD  WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED AND HANDED OVER TO RAILWAYS IN SEALS INTACT CONDITION TO BE DELIVERED TO SURAT UNDER RR.NO. 35873 DT. 26.5.96. RAILWAYS FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THEM FAILED TO CHECK PHYSICALLY THE QUANTITY LOADED AND ISSUED RAILWAY RECEIPT BEARING REMARK SAID TO CONTAIN .RAILWAYS WERE FREE TO VERIFY/SUPERVISE THE LOADING AND FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE RAILWAYS TO VERIFY/SUPERVISE THE LOADING CANNOT BE THE GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF THIS CORPORATIONS CLAIM. THE FACT THAT THE TANKWAGON WAS DELIVERED AT DESTINATION IN TOP AND BOTTOM SEALS MISSING CONDITION AND MANHOLE COVER IN OPEN CONDITION PROVES INTERFERENCE TO THE WAGON WHEN IN CUSTODY OF THE RAILWAYS. THE JOINT DIP TAKEN AT THE DESTINATION CERTIFIES THE CONDITION OF THE CONDISNMENT AND THE SHORTAGE INCURRED.  25/Oct/2010  THE SUIT CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED FROM THE IOC OWNED SIDING. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS DECLARED AS MOTOR SPIRIT AS PER FORWARDING NOTE. IN THIS CASE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED AS SAID TO CONTAIN RAILWAY RECEIPT LOADING WAS DONE IN IOC SIDING AND NOT SUPERVISED. THE FIXING OF VALVES AND SEALS WAS ALSO DONE BY THE OFFICIALS OF SENDERS WEIGHT WAS ACCEPTED BY RAILWAY STAFF. NO INTERFERENCE WAS ENROUTE AS CONSIGNMENT LEFT FROMK BOOKING STATION ON 28.05.96 AND REACHED AT DESTINATION ON 29.05.96. THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MADE OVER THE WAGON TO THE APPLICANT ON 29.05.96 AT SPECIFIED POIINT OF INTERCHANGE OF WAGONS BETWEEN THE RAILWAY AND THE PRIVATE SIDING OF THE APPLICANT WHEN NO OBJECTION OR COMPLAINT ABOUT THE SEAL DEFICIENCY SHORTAGE WAS REGISTERED BY THE APPLICANT. THEREFORE RAILWAY ADMINSTRATION IS RESPONSIBLE UNDER PROVISION SECTION 94. AS PER THE SYSTEM IN FORCE LEAKAGE ASPECT OF THE TANK WAGON IS THOROUGHLY CHECKED BY THE SENDERS OFFICIALS DURING AND AFTER THE LOADING AND THE WAGONS FOUND TO BE LEAKAGE MAY BE REJECTED BY THEM. IT IS DENIED THAT THE SHORTAGE DETECTED AT DESTINATION WAS DUE TO CARELESSNESS OF THE STAFF OF THE RESPONDENTS. THE RESPONDENT USED REASONABLE FORESIGHT AND TOOK NECESSARY CARE OF THE SUIT CONSIGNMENT DURING TRANSIT. THE WAGONS ARRIVED AT DESTINATION STATION WITH TOP AND BOTTOM SEALS INTACT AND NO SIGN OF LEAKAGE ON THE BODY OF TANK WAGON.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 110  TA/693/1997  2080200101 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  139539  WR  HC/ALD  IOC VIDE RR 7933 DATED 25.04.1994 BOOKED A RAKE OF 23 TWS CONTAINING ATF EX-BAJWA TO IDGAH. OUT OF SAID RAKE, TW NO. CR 44407 CONTAINING 25130 LITRES WITH DIP OF 195.2 CM WAS NOT RECEIVED AT THE DESTINATION LOCATION. NOTICE DATED 14.09.94 FOR RS.2,75,051.00 WAS ACCORDINGLY SERVED. LATERON THIS TANK WAGAON WAS RECEIVED AS UNCONNECTED AT SHAKURBASTI ON 10/11.07.94 AFTER A DELAY OF ABOUT 3 MONTHS. IN JOINT DIP, TOP & BOTTOM SEALS WERE FOUND MISSING PROVING THAT SOME TAMPERING WAS COMMITTED ENROUTE. RECEIPT DIP WAS FOUND 182 CM RESULTINNG INTO LOSS OF 1618 LITRES OF PRODUCT. SINCE PRODUCT WAS RECEIVED AFTER 3 MONTHS TIME, ATF WAS DOWNGRADED TO SKO. THUS TOTAL LOSS OCCURED WAS WORTH RS.1,39,539.00. THEREFORE, REVISED NOTICE FOR RS.1,39,539.00 WAS SENT ON 04.02.97 BUT OF NO AVAIL. SUPRPRISINGLY, CLAIM OF IOC BEARING NO.TAI6931997AGC WAS DISSMISSED ON 24.05.06 BY RCTGHAZIABAD STATING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE SHORTAGE WAS DUE TO NEGLIGENCE OF RESPONDENTRAILWAY COMPLETELY IGNORING THE FACT THAT TW WAS RECEIVED AFTER A DELAY OF 3 MONTHS WHEN BOTH TOP & BOTTOM SEALS WERE ALSO FOUND MISSING AND FURTHER RAILWAY DID NOT FILE ANY REPLY DENYING OUR CLAIM. PRESENTLY MATTER IS IN APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. FURTHER AT ALL LOADING LOCATIONS, RAILWAY STAFFS ARE POSTED TO SUPERVISE THE LOADING. AT LOADING LOCATION, IN CASE ANY LEAKAGEDEFECT, BEFORE OR AFTER LOADING, IS NOTICED IN ANY TW, RAILWAY STAFF ISSUES MEMO IN THIS REGARD AND DETAIN THE DEFECTIVE TW.  02/Nov/2011  THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON. THE SHORTAGE IS BASED ON PRIVATE PANCHANAMA DRAWN BY PARTY WHICH IS NOT WITNESSED BY RAILWAY. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED IN PARTYS SIDING. THE GOODS WERE ACCEPTED FOR CARRIAGE UNDER PROTECTIVE REMARKS OF RAILWLAY RECEIPT I.E. LOADED BY SENDER AT THEIR SIDING - LOADING NOT SUPERVISED AND CONTENTS NOT CHECKED NOT COUNTED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WEIGHMENT CHECKED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WAGON BOOK ON THE FASIS OF ACTUAL MACHINE TARE. THE DISPUTED CONSIGNMENTS REACHED AT DESTINATION WITHIN NORMAL TRANSIT TIME. THE OBSERVATION REPORT DID NOT FOUND ANY SHORTAGE. THE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT WAS TAKEN UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT AND NO SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED AT DESTINATION STATION BY THE RAILWAY. HOWEVER RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NOT CONSIDERED THE PLEADING OF RAILWAYS BY HOLDING THAT RAILWAY COULD NOT LEAD REBUTTAL EVIDENCE. THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD WHICH IS PENDING.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 111  OA/810/1998  2080200449 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  207567  WR  HC/ALD  IOC VIDE RR NO.29140 DATED 26.11.95 BOOKED A RAKE OF MS EXBAJWA TO IDGAH. OUT OF SAID RAKE, TW NO.NF46337 CONTAINING 27020 LITRES WITH 211.3 CM DIP WAS RECEIVED AT DESTINATION IN LEAKY CONDITION WITH DIP OF 114 CM RESULTING INTO LOSS OF 13445 LITRES WORTH RS.207567.00. SURPRISINGLY CLAIMANTS CLAIM APPLICATION NO.OA181098AGC WAS DISMISSED BY RCTGHAZIABAD ON 31.01.06 WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. HENCE APPLICANT PREFERRRED FAO NO.1379 06 BEFORE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT WHICH IS PENDING. FURTHER AT ALL LOADING LOCATIONS, RAILWAY STAFFS ARE POSTED TO SUPERVISE THE LOADING. AT LOADING LOCATION, IN CASE ANY LEAKAGE DEFECT, BEFORE OR AFTER LOADING, IS NOTICED IN ANY TW, RAILWAY STAFF ISSUES MEMO IN THIS REGARD AND DETAIN THE DEFECTIVE TW. HENCE RAILWAY IS LIABLE TO MAKE GOOD THE LOSS SUFFERED BY THE CLAIMANT IOC.  02/Nov/2011  THIS IS A CASE OF SHORT DELIVERY. CONTESTING ON THE GROUND OF THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED AS SAID TO CONTAIN AND SENDERS WEIGHT ACCEPTED. THE LOADING WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF. THE LOADED CONSIGNMENT REACHED AT DESTINATION IN NORMAL TRANSIT TIME IN INTACT CONDITION. CASE IS NOT PAYABLE AS PER RAILWAY BOARDS GUID LINES IN RESPECT OF IOCS CLAIM AGAINST SAID TO CONTAIN RR.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 112  OC/8/2003  2080300005 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  305755  WR  Case Settled by RCT AHMEDABAD on 12-JUN-15 in favour of Party  AS PER THE SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE TOP & BOTTOM SEALS WERE INTACT. HOWEVER T/W WAS LEAKING HEAVLY FROM BOTTOM. AS REQUIRED BY RAILWAYS, WE HAD ALSO SUBMITTED LETTER OF AUTHORITY FROM BPCL FOR CLAIMING THE LOSSES.  12/Jan/2011  AS PER JOINT DIP MEASUREMENT REPORT THE CONDITION OF SEAL FOUND OK, BOTTOM SEAL OK, CONDITION VALVES OK, TOP AND BOTTOM VALVES OK. THERE IS NO SIGN OF LEAKAGE GOODS WERE DELIVERED IN TIME. SUJECT CONSIGNEMNT WAS BOOKED FROM PRIVATE SIDING AND LOADING OF THE TANK WAGON WAS DONE BY THE SENDER AND SAME WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF, FIXING OF VALVES AND SEAL WAS ALSO DONE BY THE SENDER. THE WAGON ARRIVED DESTINATION STATION WITH BOTH TOP AND BOTTOM SEALS INTACT WITHOUT ANY LEAKAGE. RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE USED REASONABLE FORESIGHT AND DUE CARE IN THE CARRIAGE OF THE CONSIGNMENT.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 113  OA/159/2005  2080500048 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  219692  WR  HC/JBP  CLAIM FOR MISSING TW NO. SER-95488, BOOKED VIDE RR NO.83121 DT.14.03.2002, PREFERRED WITH WESTERN RLY VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/WR/E/04/2002-03 DT.16.7.02. CLAIM REGISTERED BY WESTERN RLY VIDE REF. NO. CL/POL/PL2/RTM/10201457/7/02-03. W RLY VIDE LETTER DATED 10.1.03 INFORMED THAT, VALVE DEFECTIVE MEMO WAS ISSUED BY IOC AFTER 29 HRS AND IN RELEASE MEMO IOC HAS GIVEN ONLY REMARK AS DEFECTIVE TW. TW FOUND EMPTY AT KARCHIA YARD. HENCE TW IS PRESUMED AS DECANTED BETWEEN 17.03.02 AND 18.03.02. HENCE CASE WAS REFERRED TO RCT, BHOPAL. P.O. FOR DECANTATION BY RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION NOT YET RECEIVED. HENCE BILLING IS NOT DONE.  03/Dec/2010  THIS IS A CASE OF NON DELIVERY OF FURNACE OIL. THE CONSIGNMENT CONSUMED BY RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION I.E. CWM DAHOD. AWAITED FOR PAYAMENT CONFIRMATION AGAINST SUPPLY ORDER FROM APPLICANT.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 114  OA/160/2005  2080500049 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  279317  WR  Case Settled by RCT BHOPAL on 16-DEC-15 in favour of Party  CLOSED  25/Mar/2011  THIS IS A CASE OF NON DELIVERY OF FURNACE OIL. THE CONSIGNMENT CONSUMED BY RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION I.E. CWM DAHOD. AWAITED FOR PAYAMENT CONFIRMATION AGAINST SUPPLY ORDER FROM APPLICANT.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 115  OA/55/2007  2080800001 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  192280  WR  Case Settled by RCT BOMBAY on 21-APR-16 in favour of Party  WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT TW NO.ER 33260 AND SR 41862 WERE LOADED WITH 25060 AND 25090 LITRES OF SKO AND FREIGHT WAS PAID FOR THIS QUANTIY AND CONSIGNMENT WAS HANDED OVER TO RAILWAYS IN SEALS INTACT CONDITION TO BE DELIVERED TO BAKANIA UNDER RR.NO. 973546 DT. 28.7.04. RAILWAYS FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THEM FAILED TO CHECK PHYSICALLY THE QUANTITY LOADED AND ISSUED RAILWAY RECEIPT BEARING REMARK SAID TO CONTAIN .RAILWAYS WERE FREE TO VERIFY/SUPERVISE THE LOADING AND FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE RAILWAYS TO VERIFY/SUPERVISE THE LOADING CANNOT BE THE GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF THIS CORPORATIONS CLAIM. THE TANKWAGON WAS DELIVERED AT DESTINATION IN TOP SEAL BROKEN AND TOP MAN HOLE COVER IN OPEN CONDITION. THIS PROVES INTERFERENCE TO THE WAGON WHEN IN CUSTODY OF THE RAILWAYS. THE JOINT DIP TAKEN AT THE DESTINATION CERTIFIES THE CONDITION OF THE CONSIGNMENT AND THE SHORTAGE INCURRED. WE THEREFORE PRAY THAT THE CLAIM AMOUNT IS RELEASED TO US WITH INTEREST OF 18% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF APPLICATION TILL SETTLEMENT.  28/Feb/2011  IN THIS CASE M/S. BPCL CLAIM FOR SHORT DELIVERY OF SUPER KEROSENE OIL FOR 9578 LITRS. BOOKED FROM PANEWADI TO BAKANIAN BHAUMI. THE CASE WAS REPUDIATED ON THE BASIS OF REMARKS ON RR SENDERS WEIGHT ACCEPTED AND SAID TO CONTAIN RR ISSUED WITH REMARKS LOADING NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWALY STAFF AND SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE APPLICANT. THE DIP MEASUREMENT OF FORWARDING STATION WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF AND CONSIGNMENT REACHED DESTINATION WITHIN TRANSIT TIME I.E. BOOKED ON 28/07/2004 AND REACHED AT DESTINATION ON 29/07/2004.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 116  OA/21/2009  2080900022 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  41672  WR  RCT/BPL  THE DECISION OF RAILWAYS TO ADJUST OUR JUSTIFIED CLAIM AMOUNT AGAINST DUES OUTSTANDING OF RAILWAYS IS UNILATERAL AND NOT ACCEPTABLE TO US. RAILWAY DUES AND OUR CLAIMS ARE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES AND SHOULD NOT BE LINKED TO EACH OTHER. WE THEREFORE PRAY THAT THE CLAIM AMOUNT IS RELEASED TO US WITH INTEREST OF 18% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF APPLICATION TILL SETTLEMENT.  15/Oct/2010  THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF MOTOR SPIRIT. OIL. AT CLAIMS STAGE CASE WAS SETTLED WITH THE PARTY FOR RS. 41651 AS ADJUSTMENT AGAINST APPLICANTS RAILWAYS DUES. HOWEVER THE PARTY WAS NOT AGREED TO AGAINST ADJUSTMENT SETTLEMENT.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 117  OA/8/2005  2081000001 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  131991000  WR  RCT/ADI  WESTERN RAILWAY ERECTED A LINK LINE(CHORD LINE) BETWEEN BARODA ¿ E ¿ CABIN TO CHHAYAPURI RAILWAY STATION ON VADODARA-GODHRA SECTION OF THE WESTERN RAILWAY AND THE SAME WAS COMMISSIONED ON 9TH AUGUST 1971. CONSEQUENT TO COMMISSIONING OF THE NEW LINE, OIL TANKS RAKES BOOKED BY IOC FROM BAJWA TO NORTH OF VADODARA VIA RATLAM-DELHI WERE NOT REQUIRED TO BE HAULED UP TO VADODARA STATION AND WERE DIRECTLY DISPATCHED VIA THE CHORD LINE RESULTING A REDUCTION IN DISTANCE OF APPROX. 11 KMS. THOUGH THE ACTUAL MOVEMENT WAS TAKING PLACE VIA CHORD LINE, RAILWAY CONTINUE TO CHARGE 11 KM MORE VIA VADODARA FROM 9.8.1971 ONWARDS. THIS ISSUE WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF RAILWAY BY IOC IN 1993, BUT RAILWAY DID NOT TOOK COGNIZANCE OF SAME AND CONTINUE TO CHARGE 11 KMS MORE. AGAIN ISSUE WAS FURTHER PURSUED IN 2001. AFTER THAT, RAILWAY TOOK OUT THE NOTIFICATION NO. ARN NO.87(GOODS) OF 2002 REVISING THE DISTANCE OF ALL RAKES MOVING FROM GUJARAT REFINERY TO CHHAYAPURI VIDE CHORD LINE WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT FROM 8.8.2002. AGAIN MATTER WAS PERSUED WITH CCM, W.RLY FOR EFFECTING REVISION IN DISTANCE FROM RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. IT IS CONFIRMED BY RAILWAY THAT, RECORD IS AVAILABLE FROM 20.10.1996 ONWARDS. HENCE REVISED NOTIFICATION ARN NO. 121 (GOODS) OF 2002 DT.10.12.2002, WAS TAKEN OUT BY RAILWAY BOARD AND DECLARED REVISED DISTANCE WAS MADE EFFECTIVE FROM 20.10.1996. ACCORDINGLY CLAIMS FOR THE PERIOD 1996 TO 2002 AMOUNTING TO RS.33.93 CRORES ON VARIOUS DATES WERE SUBMITTED TO RAILWAYS DURING THE PERIOD JULY¿02 TO APRIL¿03. RAILWAY PROCESSED THE CLAIM AND ADVISED VIDE LETTER NO.C/RFG/IOC/POLICY/2003-04 DT.23.07.2004 THAT OUT OF TOTAL CLAIM OF RS.33.93 CRORES LODGED BY IOC, THE CASES SETTLED AMOUNTING TO RS.14.70 CRORES AND THE BALANCE CASES AMOUNTING TO RS.19.22 CRORES WERE PENDING. OUT OF RS.14.70 CRORES, RS.2.36 CRORES WAS PERMITTED FOR ADJUSTMENT AGAINST FREIGHT PAYMENT AT GRI. WESTERN RAILWAY VIDE THE AFORESAID LETTER REPUDIATED 301 CASES INCLUDING 29 CASES PERTAINING TO THE PERIOD AFTER 25.04.2001, WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON. SINCE RAILWAY WAS NOT SETTLING CLAIMS, THEN SUIT WAS FILED IN RCT VIDE REF.NO. 0500008 DT.5.12.05 (FOR THE PERIOD 20.10.96 TO 30.09.99) AND 0500009 DT.05.12.2005(FOR THE PERIOD 01.10.99 TO AUG¿02. ONLY ONE HEARING TOOK PLACE AND RCT ADVISED TO SETTLE ISSUE MUTUALLY. ACCORDINGLY MEETING TOOK PLACE ON 20.02.2007. IN MEETING RAILWAY ADVISED THAT, AS PER LATEST RAILWAY BOARD NOTIFICATION NO. 09-2006 ISSUED ON 12.07.2006 THAT, THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CHARGING OF DATE WILL BE FROM 25.04.2001 INSTEAD OF 20.10.1996. THIS WAS NOT AGREED BY IOC. FURTHER NO HEARING TOOK PLACE AT RCT AND DECISION OF RCT IS STILL AWAITED. IT IS WORTHWHILE TO MENTION THAT, RAILWAY CONTINUE TO OVERCHARGE FOR QUITE LONGER PERIOD MORE THAN 30 YEARS AND HAD GAINED A VERY LARGE AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CHARGING. BUT WHEN ISSUE WAS TAKEN UP WITH RAILWAY , THEY AGREED TO SETTLE THE CLAIMS WEF FROM 20.10.96 ONWARDS AND AFTER LODGMENT OF CLAIMS WEF 20.10.96 ONWARDS , RAILWAY CHANGED THEIR STAND AND DECLARED TO SETTLED CLAIMS WEF FROM 25.04.2001, WHICH IS TOTALLY AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND UNLAWFUL.  28/Mar/2011  INDIAN OIL CORPORTION LTD. HAS FILED OR NO.2005009 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. NATURE OF LOSS. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED FROM VARIOUS STATION TO NORTH WEST VIA BAJWA WHEREAS RAILWAY CHARGED FREIGHT VIA BARODA WHICH IS 11 KMS. IN EXCESS AS COMPARED TO BAJWA ROUTE. AS SUCH APPLICANT HAVE TO PAY EXCESS FREIGHT W.S. FILED IN RCT ADI ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS.ARGUMENTS. APPLICANTS ARENOT ENTITLED FOR FREIFHT PRIOR TO BOOKING OF 2001 AS PER RAILWAY BOARDS LETTER NO. TC IV 03.4700.10.R DATED 14.2.2006. REGARDING REFUND OF FREIGHT PERTAINING TO PERIOD ON AND FROM 2001 APPLICANTS ARE ENTITLED FOR REFUND OF THIS REFUND AMOUNT SOME AMOUNT HAS BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST THE PENDING DUES OF THE APPLICANT. THE BALANCE REFUND AMOUNT HAS BEEN KEPT WITH THE RAILWAY FOR FUTURE ADJUSTMENT. THE HONABLE RCT PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE MATTER INVOLVES SO MANY TRANSACTION BETWEEN TWO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INSTITUTES. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SOME OF THE TRANSACTION ARE MUTUALLY SETTLED BUT THEY ARE NOT IDENTIFIABLE QUA PARTICULAR TRANSACTION. THEY SEEK TIME FOR FINDING OUT SOLUTION BY JOINT VENTURE TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES IF POSSIBLE. HENCE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE MATTER IS ADJOURNED. REASONS FOR NON SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM. BY LETTER NO. C.500.7.2.3.2009 DATED 3.8.09 APPLICANT WAS INFORMED AS UNDER. AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1156566 IS OUTSTANDING ON ACCOUNT OF NON LEVY OF DESTINATION TERMINAL CHARGES FOR POL TRAFFIC BOOKED FROM GR SIDING BJW TO NSZ. DURING THE PERIOD FROM 18.12.08 TO 18.04.09. THE PAYMENT OF THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED TILL DATE. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO MAKE PAYMENT OF THE ABOVE OUTSTANDING WITHIN SEVEN DAYS OF THE ISSUE OF THIS LETTER FAILING WHICH THIS OFFICE WOULD HAVE NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO INVOKE SECTION 83 OF THE RAILWAY ACT 1989 ALL TO ADJUST THE SAME AGAINST YOUR SANCTIONED CLAIMS.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 118  OA/47/1999  2081000002 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  168681  WR  HC/AMD  RAKE LOADED EX KHARI ROHAR ROAD TO GORAKHPUR ON BPC ACCOUNT VIDE RR.NOS518928, 518929 AND 518930 DT. 29.4.96 WAS DIVERTED BY RAILWAYS TO MATHURA (BAD) AND WAS DECANTED AT MATHURA (BAD) ON 4.5.06.SINCE THE FREIGHT WAS PAID FOR GORAKHPUR AND THE RAKE WAS DECANTED SHORT OF DESTINATION, A CLAIM FOR THE REFUND OF THE DIFFERENCE IN FREIGHT BETWEEN KRIR/GORARKHPUR AND KRIR/MATHURA WAS PREFERRED VIDE OUR CLAIM LETTER WR.FRT.7.SKO 97-98/3,4 AND 5 DATED 2.5.97 FOR RS.50473,RS. 168681 AND RS.83217 ON CCM,WESTERN RAILWAY MUMABI.SINCE THE CLAIMS WERE NOT SETTLED BY RAILWAYS, WE FILED APPLILCATION IN AHMEDABAD RCT FOR THE ABOVE CLAIMS AGAINST WRLY.THE CLAIM APPLICATIONS FILED FOR CLAIM NOS. 97-98/3 FOR RS.50473 AND 97-98/5 FOR RS.83217/- WERE DECREED IN FAVOUR OF BPC VIDE JUDEMENT ORDERS DATED 2.3.2004. THE CLAIM APPLICATION NO. 99000047 IS ONLY PENDING BEFORE RCT. WE THEREFORE PRAY THAT THE CLAIM AMOUNT IS RELEASED TO US WITH INTEREST OF 18% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF APPLICATION TILL SETTLEMENT.  01/Mar/2011  NATURE OF LOSS BPCL BOOKED 1423 QUINDALS OF M.S. FROM KRIR TO GKP ATRAILWAY RISK RATE. TANK WAGON DIVERTED TO MATHURA AND THE SAME WAS DECANTED ON 4.05.96 AND ISSUED DECANDATION CERTIFICATE FREIGHT OF RS.302473 WAS PAID FOR DISTANCE FROM KRIR TO GKP WHEREAS THE SAID TANK WAGON DECANTED AT MADHURA BEING AT A DISTANCE OF 1226 K.M. FROM KRIR TO MATHURA. APPLICANT IS CLAIMING REFUND OF EXCESS FREIGHT COLLECTED. WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS. ARGUMENTS CLAIM NOTICE HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ON 05.05.92 THATIS SIX MONTH FROM THE DATE OF DECANTATION ON 04.05.96. HENCE NOTICE IS TIME BARED. THE HONBLE RCT HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. FOR WANT OF STATUTORY NOTICE THE PRESENT APPLICATION IS NOT TENABLE AND ACCORDINGLY IT DESERVES DISMISSAL. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF RCT AHMEDABAD APPLICANT FILED APPEAL IN HIGH COURT AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1 ORDER PASSED BY TRIBUNAL IS CONDRARY TO LAW AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2 HONBLE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN DRAWING AN ADVERSE INFERENCE BY HOLDING THAT THE ADVOCATE OF THE APPELLANT HAS ADMITTED THAT THE STATUTORY NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED ON THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD. THE APPELANT STATES THAT NO SUCH A STATEMENT WAS MADE BY THE ADVOCATE OF THE APPELLANT. 3 THE APPELLANT CONFIRMS AND STATES THAT IT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY INSTRUCTION FOR DIVERSION NOR PAID FREIGHT OR FEES FOR DECANTATION OF PRODUCTS AT MATHURA INSTEAD OF GORAKHPUR. FIRST APPEAL NO. 1190.2007 IS PENDING IN HIGH COURT AHMEDABAD.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 119  OA/9/2005  2081000003 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  183625964  WR  RCT/ADI  WESTERN RAILWAY ERECTED A LINK LINE(CHORD LINE) BETWEEN BARODA ¿ E ¿ CABIN TO CHHAYAPURI RAILWAY STATION ON VADODARA-GODHRA SECTION OF THE WESTERN RAILWAY AND THE SAME WAS COMMISSIONED ON 9TH AUGUST 1971. CONSEQUENT TO COMMISSIONING OF THE NEW LINE, OIL TANKS RAKES BOOKED BY IOC FROM BAJWA TO NORTH OF VADODARA VIA RATLAM-DELHI WERE NOT REQUIRED TO BE HAULED UP TO VADODARA STATION AND WERE DIRECTLY DISPATCHED VIA THE CHORD LINE RESULTING A REDUCTION IN DISTANCE OF APPROX. 11 KMS. THOUGH THE ACTUAL MOVEMENT WAS TAKING PLACE VIA CHORD LINE, RAILWAY CONTINUE TO CHARGE 11 KM MORE VIA VADODARA FROM 9.8.1971 ONWARDS. THIS ISSUE WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF RAILWAY BY IOC IN 1993, BUT RAILWAY DID NOT TOOK COGNIZANCE OF SAME AND CONTINUE TO CHARGE 11 KMS MORE. AGAIN ISSUE WAS FURTHER PURSUED IN 2001. AFTER THAT, RAILWAY TOOK OUT THE NOTIFICATION NO. ARN NO.87(GOODS) OF 2002 REVISING THE DISTANCE OF ALL RAKES MOVING FROM GUJARAT REFINERY TO CHHAYAPURI VIDE CHORD LINE WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT FROM 8.8.2002. AGAIN MATTER WAS PERSUED WITH CCM, W.RLY FOR EFFECTING REVISION IN DISTANCE FROM RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. IT IS CONFIRMED BY RAILWAY THAT, RECORD IS AVAILABLE FROM 20.10.1996 ONWARDS. HENCE REVISED NOTIFICATION ARN NO. 121 (GOODS) OF 2002 DT.10.12.2002, WAS TAKEN OUT BY RAILWAY BOARD AND DECLARED REVISED DISTANCE WAS MADE EFFECTIVE FROM 20.10.1996. ACCORDINGLY CLAIMS FOR THE PERIOD 1996 TO 2002 AMOUNTING TO RS.33.93 CRORES ON VARIOUS DATED WERE SUBMITTED TO RAILWAYS DURING THE PERIOD JULY¿02 TO APRIL¿03. RAILWAY PROCESSED THE CLAIM AND ADVISED VIDE LETTER NO.C/RFG/IOC/POLICY/2003-04 DT.23.07.2004 THAT OUT OF TOTAL CLAIM OF RS.33.93 CRORES LODGED BY IOC, THE CASES SETTLED AMOUNTING TO RS.14.70 CRORES AND THE BALANCE CASES AMOUNTING TO RS.19.22 CRORES WERE PENDING. OUT OF RS.14.70 CRORES, RS.2.36 CRORES WAS PERMITTED FOR ADJUSTMENT AGAINST FREIGHT PAYMENT AT GRI. WESTERN RAILWAY VIDE THE AFORESAID LETTER REPUDIATED 301 CASES INCLUDING 29 CASES PERTAINING TO THE PERIOD AFTER 25.04.2001, WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON. SINCE RAILWAY WAS NOT SETTLING CLAIMS, THEN SUIT WAS FILED IN RCT VIDE REF.NO. 0500008 DT.5.12.05 (FOR THE PERIOD 20.10.96 TO 30.09.99) AND 0500009 DT.05.12.2005(FOR THE PERIOD 01.10.99 TO AUG¿02. ONLY ONE HEARING TOOK PLACE AND RCT ADVISED TO SETTLE ISSUE MUTUALLY. ACCORDINGLY MEETING TOOK PLACE ON 20.02.2007. IN MEETING RAILWAY ADVISED THAT, AS PER LATEST RAILWAY BOARD NOTIFICATION NO. 09-2006 ISSUED ON 12.07.2006 THAT, THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CHARGING OF DATE WILL BE FROM 25.04.2001 INSTEAD OF 20.10.1996. THIS WAS NOT AGREED BY IOC. FURTHER NO HEARING TOOK PLACE AT RCT AND DECISION OF RCT IS STILL AWAITED. IT IS WORTHWHILE TO MENTION THAT, RAILWAY CONTINUE TO OVERCHARGE FOR QUITE LONGER PERIOD MORE THAN 30 YEARS AND HAD GAINED A VERY LARGE L AMOUNT. BUT WHEN ISSUE WAS TAKEN UP WITH RAILWAY , THEY AGREED TO SETTLE THE CLAIMS WEF FROM 20.10.96 ONWARDS AND AFTER LODGMENT OF CLAIMS WEF 20.10.96 ONWARDS , RAILWAY CHANGED THEIR STAND AND DECLARED TO SETTLED CLAIMS WEF FROM 25.04.2001, WHICH IS TOTALLY AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND UNLAWFUL. IN REGARDS RAILWAY COMMENTS DUES TO IOC PENDING OF RS.1156566/- IT IS TO CONFIRM THAT, SAME HAS BEEN ADJUSTED BY W.RLY AGAINST SETTLEMENT OF OTHER CLAIM. HENCE REASON FOR NON SETTLEMENT DOES NOT HOLD GOOD.  28/Mar/2011  INDIAN OIL CORPORTION LTD. HAS FILED OR NO.2005009 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. NATURE OF LOSS. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED FROM VARIOUS STATION TO NORTH WEST VIA BAJWA WHEREAS RAILWAY CHARGED FREIGHT VIA BARODA WHICH IS 11 KMS. IN EXCESS AS COMPARED TO BAJWA ROUTE. AS SUCH APPLICANT HAVE TO PAY EXCESS FREIGHT W.S. FILED IN RCT ADI ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS.ARGUMENTS. APPLICANTS ARENOT ENTITLED FOR FREIFHT PRIOR TO BOOKING OF 2001 AS PER RAILWAY BOARDS LETTER NO. TC IV 03.4700.10.R DATED 14.2.2006. REGARDING REFUND OF FREIGHT PERTAINING TO PERIOD ON AND FROM 2001 APPLICANTS ARE ENTITLED FOR REFUND OF THIS REFUND AMOUNT SOME AMOUNT HAS BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST THE PENDING DUES OF THE APPLICANT. THE BALANCE REFUND AMOUNT HAS BEEN KEPT WITH THE RAILWAY FOR FUTURE ADJUSTMENT. THE HONABLE RCT PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE MATTER INVOLVES SO MANY TRANSACTION BETWEEN TWO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INSTITUTES. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SOME OF THE TRANSACTION ARE MUTUALLY SETTLED BUT THEY ARE NOT IDENTIFIABLE QUA PARTICULAR TRANSACTION. THEY SEEK TIME FOR FINDING OUT SOLUTION BY JOINT VENTURE TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES IF POSSIBLE. HENCE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE MATTER IS ADJOURNED. REASONS FOR NON SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM. BY LETTER NO. C.500.7.2.3.2009 DATED 3.8.09 APPLICANT WAS INFORMED AS UNDER. AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1156566 IS OUTSTANDING ON ACCOUNT OF NON LEVY OF DESTINATION TERMINAL CHARGES FOR POL TRAFFIC BOOKED FROM GR SIDING BJW TO NSZ. DURING THE PERIOD FROM 18.12.08 TO 18.04.09. THE PAYMENT OF THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED TILL DATE. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO MAKE PAYMENT OF THE ABOVE OUTSTANDING WITHIN SEVEN DAYS OF THE ISSUE OF THIS LETTER FAILING WHICH THIS OFFICE WOULD HAVE NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO INVOKE SECTION 83 OF THE RAILWAY ACT 1989 ALL TO ADJUST THE SAME AGAINST YOUR SANCTIONED CLAIMS.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 120  OR/51/1999  2081000040 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  2813119  WR  SC/SCRT  THE MATERIAL DISPATCHED AGAINST THE SAID RAILWAY RECEIPT BOOKED FOR KANKARIA (KKF) WERE WEIGHED AT THE STATIC WEIGHBRIDGE AT THE BOOKING POINT VSPS AND WEIGHMENT WAS WITNESSED BY THE RAILWAY STAFF AT THE BOOKING POINT, AND THE WEIGHT RECORDED ON RAILWAY RECEIPTS UNDER THE COLUMN ¿ACTUAL WEIGHT¿ WAS THE WEIGHT NOTED ON THE WEIGHBRIDGE AND WITNESSED BY THE RAILWAY STAFF. COPY OF RRS WITH THIS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. EN-ROUTE WEIGHMENT OF WAGONS IS HOWEVER NOT ACCEPTED AND THE WAGON WAS WEIGHED AT THE DESTINATION I.E. KANKARIA (KKF) SIDING AT AHMEDABAD ON A MOVING WEIGHBRIDGE AND METHOD ADOPTED FOR ARRIVING AT THE NET WEIGHT WAS ALSO WRONG. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE KKF WEIGHBRIDGE WAS FAULTY. AFTER WEIGHING AT KANKARIA UNDER THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, UNDER CHARGES WAS WRONGLY RAISED BY THE RAILWAY AUTHORITY. THE UNDER CHARGES AMOUNT WAS PAID TO RAILWAYS UNDER PROTEST.  17/Sep/2011  RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999051 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 121  OA/4/2009  2081000077 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  2506525  WR  Case Settled by RCT AHMEDABAD on 24-APR-13 in favour of Party  RAILWAY CHARGED 1443 KMS INSTEAD OF 1093 KMS FROM GRI TO MPEB,CHACHAI IN 10 CASES. HENCE FREIGHT REFUND CLAIM LODGED VIDE LETTER REF.NO. GRI/FINANCE/TC DATED 15.02.2008. WESTERN RAILWAY ACKNOWLEDGED CLAIM VIDE LETTER REF.NO.C/RFG/950 TO 959/08/OIL DATED 03.03.2008 AND INFORMED THAT CASES PERTAINS TO RR DATED 28.08.07 AND 20.10.07 ARE BEING CONSIDERED FOR SETTLEMENT, WHEREAS CASES OF RR DATED 23.07.06,16.10.06 AND 04.02.07 ARE REPUDIATED AS ¿TIME BARRED¿. AN APPEAL WAS MADE TO GM, W.RLY TO CONSIDER DELAYED CASES FOR SETTLEMENT VIDE OUR LETTER DATED 17.03.2008. W.RLY VIDE LETTER DATED 18.06.2008 INFORMED THAT, FREIGHT CHARGES HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY CHARGED AS PER ROUTE SELECTED IN FORWARDING NOTE. CGS BAJUWA CLARIFIED THAT, ROUTE SELECTION IS NOT DONE BY IOC. IN ADVERTANTLY RAILWAY CHARGED KMS VIDE JL AND NOT VIA BPL WHICH IS SHORTEST ROUTE. ACCORDINGLY AGAIN ISSUE WAS TAKEN UP WITH CCO, W.RLY VIDE LETTER DATED 3.7.2008. FURTHER AGAIN CGS,BAJUWA CLARIFIED VIDE LETTER DATED 1.8.2008 THAT, ROUTE SELECTION WRITTEN ON BACKSIDE OF FORWARDING NOTE IS DONE BY RAILWAY STAFF AND NOT BY IOC. SAME HAS BEEN AGAIN EXPLAINED TO CCO, W.RLY VIDE LETTER DATED 6.8.2008. FINAL APPEAL WAS AGAIN MADE VIDE LETTER DATED 22.10.2008 AND REMINDERS SENT VIDE LETTER DATED 10.2.2009, 5.3.2009, 1.4.2009. DUE TO NON RECEIPT OF POSITIVE RESPONSE FROM CCO, W.RLY , FINALLY SUIT WAS FILED IN RCT, AHMEDABAD.TILL DATE RCT, AHMEDABAD NOT DELIVERED JUDGMENT.  28/Mar/2011  IOC HAS FILED CLAIM APPLICATION IN RCT ADI FOR REFUND OF RS. 2506545. RR NO.110384 110385 DT. 23.7.2006 RR NO.111624 111625 DT. 16.10.2006 RR NO.113431 113432 DT. 4.12.2007 . AT CLAIM STAGE CLAIM WAS REPUDIATED VIDE LETTER DATED 3.3.2008 AS BEING TIME BARRED. WRITTEN STATEMENT IS NOT FILED BY RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION IN RCT ADI.  11/Jan/2011  No  No  No  No
 122  OA/31/2009  2081000082 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  624918  WR  RCT/ADI  RAILWAY CHARGED 1443 KMS INSTEAD OF 1093 KMS FROM GRI TO MPEB,CHACHAI IN 10 CASES. HENCE FREIGHT REFUND CLAIM LODGED VIDE LETTER REF.NO. GRI/FINANCE/TC DATED 15.02.2008. WESTERN RAILWAY ACKNOWLEDGED CLAIM VIDE LETTER REF.NO.C/RFG/950 TO 959/08/OIL DATED 03.03.2008 AND INFORMED THAT CASES PERTAINS TO RR DATED 28.08.07 AND 20.10.07 ARE BEING CONSIDERED FOR SETTLEMENT, WHEREAS CASES OF RR DATED 23.07.06,16.10.06 AND 04.02.07 ARE REPUDIATED AS ¿TIME BARRED¿. AN APPEAL WAS MADE TO GM, W.RLY TO CONSIDER DELAYED CASES FOR SETTLEMENT VIDE OUR LETTER DATED 17.03.2008. W.RLY VIDE LETTER DATED 18.06.2008 INFORMED THAT, FREIGHT CHARGES HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY CHARGED AS PER ROUTE SELECTED IN FORWARDING NOTE. CGS BAJUWA CLARIFIED THAT, ROUTE SELECTION IS NOT DONE BY IOC. IN ADVERTANTLY RAILWAY CHARGED KMS VIDE JL AND NOT VIA BPL WHICH IS SHORTEST ROUTE. ACCORDINGLY AGAIN ISSUE WAS TAKEN UP WITH CCO, W.RLY VIDE LETTER DATED 3.7.2008. FURTHER AGAIN CGS,BAJUWA CLARIFIED VIDE LETTER DATED 1.8.2008 THAT, ROUTE SELECTION WRITTEN ON BACKSIDE OF FORWARDING NOTE IS DONE BY RAILWAY STAFF AND NOT BY IOC. SAME HAS BEEN AGAIN EXPLAINED TO CCO, W.RLY VIDE LETTER DATED 6.8.2008. FINAL APPEAL WAS AGAIN MADE VIDE LETTER DATED 22.10.2008 AND REMINDERS SENT VIDE LETTER DATED 10.2.2009, 5.3.2009, 1.4.2009. DUE TO NON RECEIPT OF POSITIVE RESPONSE FROM CCO, W.RLY , FINALLY SUIT WAS FILED IN RCT, AHMEDABAD.TILL DATE RCT, AHMEDABAD NOT DELIVERED JUDGMENT.  28/Mar/2011  IOC HAS FILED CLAIM APPLICATION IN RCT ADI FOR REFUND OF RS.624918 RR NO.212010362 212010363 212010361 212010360 AT CLAIM STAGE CLAIM WAS REPUDIATED VIDE LETTER DATED 3.3.2008 AS BEING TIME BARRED. DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION FILED BY IOC IN RCT. REPLY IS NOT FILED YET BY RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION IN RCT.  11/Jan/2011  No  No  No  No
 123  OR/31/1999  2081000233 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  0  WR  SC/SCRT  THE MATERIAL DISPATCHED AGAINST THE SAID RAILWAY RECEIPT BOOKED FOR KANKARIA (KKF) WERE WEIGHED AT THE STATIC WEIGHBRIDGE AT THE BOOKING POINT VSPS AND WEIGHMENT WAS WITNESSED BY THE RAILWAY STAFF AT THE BOOKING POINT, AND THE WEIGHT RECORDED ON RAILWAY RECEIPTS UNDER THE COLUMN ¿ACTUAL WEIGHT¿ WAS THE WEIGHT NOTED ON THE WEIGHBRIDGE AND WITNESSED BY THE RAILWAY STAFF. COPY OF RRS WITH THIS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. EN-ROUTE WEIGHMENT OF WAGONS IS HOWEVER NOT ACCEPTED AND THE WAGON WAS WEIGHED AT THE DESTINATION I.E. KANKARIA (KKF) SIDING AT AHMEDABAD ON A MOVING WEIGHBRIDGE AND METHOD ADOPTED FOR ARRIVING AT THE NET WEIGHT WAS ALSO WRONG. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE KKF WEIGHBRIDGE WAS FAULTY. AFTER WEIGHING AT KANKARIA UNDER THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, UNDER CHARGES WAS WRONGLY RAISED BY THE RAILWAY AUTHORITY. THE UNDER CHARGES AMOUNT OF RS. 29780/- WAS PAID TO RAILWAYS UNDER PROTEST.  17/Sep/2011  RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999008 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS. ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY. UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT. II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED. ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES. HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  16/Mar/2011  No  No  No  No
 124  OR/34/1999  2081000234 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  0  WR  SC/SCRT  THE MATERIAL DISPATCHED AGAINST THE SAID RAILWAY RECEIPT BOOKED FOR KANKARIA (KKF) WERE WEIGHED AT THE STATIC WEIGHBRIDGE AT THE BOOKING POINT VSPS AND WEIGHMENT WAS WITNESSED BY THE RAILWAY STAFF AT THE BOOKING POINT, AND THE WEIGHT RECORDED ON RAILWAY RECEIPTS UNDER THE COLUMN ¿ACTUAL WEIGHT¿ WAS THE WEIGHT NOTED ON THE WEIGHBRIDGE AND WITNESSED BY THE RAILWAY STAFF. COPY OF RRS WITH THIS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. EN-ROUTE WEIGHMENT OF WAGONS IS HOWEVER NOT ACCEPTED AND THE WAGON WAS WEIGHED AT THE DESTINATION I.E. KANKARIA (KKF) SIDING AT AHMEDABAD ON A MOVING WEIGHBRIDGE AND METHOD ADOPTED FOR ARRIVING AT THE NET WEIGHT WAS ALSO WRONG. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE KKF WEIGHBRIDGE WAS FAULTY. AFTER WEIGHING AT KANKARIA UNDER THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, UNDER CHARGES WAS WRONGLY RAISED BY THE RAILWAY AUTHORITY. THE UNDER CHARGES AMOUNT OF RS. 1105/- WAS PAID TO RAILWAYS UNDER PROTEST.  17/Sep/2011  RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999008 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS. ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY. UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT. II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED. ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES. HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  16/Mar/2011  No  No  No  No
 125  OC/250/1993  2089600002 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  8292217  WR  Case Settled by RCT AHMEDABAD on 24-APR-13 in favour of Party  CLAIM FOR 23 MISSING TANKWAGONS WHICH WERE BOOKED VIDE RR NO.979436, 38 , 39 DT.10.04.1990, PREFERRED WITH WESTERN RLY VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/WR/E/014 TO 036 /1990 DT. 07.09.1990 FOR ` 8292227//-. W RLY REGISTERED CLAIM UNDER REF.NO. CL/AIE/F/90/163/SPL(KANDLA ACCIDENT CASE). THESE 23 TANKWAGONS WERE MET WITH FIRE ACCIDENT AT NAGDA. CCO, W.RLY REPUDIATED CLAIM STATING THAT NO RAILWAY PERSONNEL IS HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOSSES. SEVERAL APPEAL AND CLOSE FOLLOW UP MAINTAINED WITH RAILWAY. HOWEVER NO FAVOURABLE DECISION RECEIVED. HENCE SUIT WAS FILED IN RCT, AHMEDABAD IN 1993. TILL DATE RCT, BHOPAL NOT YET DELIVERED JUDGMENT.  25/Mar/2011  1. CAUSE OF ACTION -NON-DELIVERY 23 TANK WAGON CONTAINING NAPHTHA DUE TO FIRE AT NAGDA. 2. REPUDIATION OF CLAIM- AS PER MJE REPORT THERE HAD BEEN THE FORMATION OF VAPOUR CLOUD DUE TO INADEQUATE VAPOUR SPACE IN THE WAGONS AND ALSO THERE WAS OVER FLOW OF THE PRODUCT DUE TO COPS ON THE PIPES INSIDE THE MAIN HOLE COVER NOT BEING FITTED AFTER THE LOADING HAD BEEN COMPLETED AND THIS HAS GOT IGNITED FROM A SPARK EITHER FROM A ROAD VEHICLE ON FROM ANY OTHER OUTSIDE NEAR BY SOURCES RESULTING IN THE TANK WAGONS CATCHING FIRE. NO RAILWAY STAFF IS HELD RESPONSIBLE.THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED AT OWNER RISK. THE CONSIGNMENT TANK WAGON WERE LOADED IN REFINERY SIDING OWNED BY THE APPLICANT AND LOADING WAS DONE BY APPLICANT AND NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 126  OC/136/1998  2089800008 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  160538  WR  Case Settled by RCT AHMEDABAD on 07-AUG-14 in favour of Party  AS PER JOUNT DIP CERTIFICATE TOP & BOTTOM SEALS INTACT. LEAD SEALS NOT PROPERLY FIXED AND ONLY WRAPPED AROUND THE BOLTS IN BOTH TOP & BOTTOM.  12/Jan/2011  1 THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED FROM THE SIDING OF THE APPLICANT AND LOADING OF WAGON WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY AND DIP MEASUREMENT WAS TAKEN IN PRESENCE OF RAILWAY STAFF. 2 THE SEALING OF THE WAGON WAS DONE BY THE APPLICANTS STAFF AS PER PROCEDURE IN FORCE. AS PER JOINT DIP CERIFICATE LEAD SEAL WAS NOT PROPERLY FIXED AND ONLY WRAPPED AROUND THE BOLT IN BOTH TOP AND BOTTOM SEALS. RESPONDENT TAKE REASONABLE FORESIGHT AND DUE CARE IN CARRIAGE OF CONSIGNMENT AS A PRUDENT CARRIER.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 127  OC/134/1999  2089900073 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  266815  WR  Case Settled by RCT AHMEDABAD on 21-FEB-14 in favour of Party  TWNO. WR 906879 WAS LDD WITH 66760 LITRES OF MS AND DESPATCHED EX BAJUWA TO MANGLIA IN SEALS INTACT CONDITION. RAILWAYS FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THEM FAILED TO CHECK PHYSICALLY THE QUANTITY LOADED AND ISSUED RAILWAY RECEIPT BEARING REMARK SAID TO CONTAIN .THE TANKWAGON REACHED DESTINATION IN LEAKING FROM THE BOTTOM AND MASTER VALVE BADLY LEAKY.THIS IS ALSO CONFIRMED IN THE SHORTAGE/ JOINT DIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY CGS MANGALIAGAON.WE THEREFORE FILED A CLAIM FOR THE LOSS OF 13485 LITRES SUFFERED IN THE TANWAGON. RAILWAYS WERE FREE TO VERIFY/SUPERVISE THE LOADING AND FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE RAILWAYS TO VERIFY/SUPERVISE THE LOADING CANNOT BE THE GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF THIS CORPORATIONS CLAIM. SINCE THE CLAIM WAS NOT SETTLED THE SAID APPLICATION WAS FILED IN RCT.  28/Feb/2011  IN THIS CASE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED ON 15.10.1996 AND REACHED AT DESTINATION ON NEXT DATE THAT IS ON 16.10.1996 WITH BOTH SEAL INTACT. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED AS SAID TO CONTAIN RR LOADED AT IOC SIDING NOR SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF AS SUCH WHATEVER LOADING HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO DESTINATION BEING A CARRIER AND DELIVERED TO APPLICANT. TANK WAGON RECEIVED WITH UPPER AND BOTTOM VALVES HAVING SEAL INTACT AND LEAKAGE WAS FROM MASTER VALVES FOR WHICH RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION IS NOT RESPONSIBLE AS LEAKAGE CAN BE DUE TO NEGLIGENCE OF OIL CAMPANY IN NOT CLOSING VALVE PROPERLY. UNDER PROVISION SECTION 94 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 128  OC/1/2007  2100700013 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  18876  EC  RCT/RNC  WAGON UNDER CLAIM WAS PLACED AT OUR SIDING ON 02.10.2005 WITH TOP SEAL BROKEN CONDITION. WE HAD MADE APPEAL ON THE SAME DAY TO HTNC, DHANBAD; AMY, DHANBAD; & INSPECTOR, RPF; DHANBAD FOR JOINT CHECKING VIDE OUR LR NO DHN/12 DT 02.10.05. UNFORTUNATELY NO RAILWAY OFFICIAL TURNED UP OR RESPONDED TO OUR REQUEST WHEN THE ABOVE 3 CONCERNED OFFICIALS SIGNED THE RECEIPT COPY (AT 9-20 AM) ON THE OFFICE COPY OF JOINT CHECKING REQUEST LETTER. WE THEREFORE HAD TO MAKE JOINT CHECKING WITH OTHER OIL INDUSTRY MEMBERS (IOC & HPC)AS PER OIL INDUSTRY POLICY ON ALL INDIA BASIS. WE HAVE SUBMITTED THE JOINT CHECKING CERTIFICATE TO RLY¿S AUTHORITY FOR SETTLEMENT OF OUR CLAIM. AS PER RR, CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED UNDER ¿RLY RISK¿ RATE AND WAGON PLACED WITH SEAL BROKEN CONDITION WHICH PROVES THE GROSS NEGLIGENCE OF RLY WHILE THE SAME WAS UNDER RLY CUSTODY SINCE DESPATCH TO DELIVERY AND PRODUCT WAS PILFERED EN ROUTE. IN MOST OF THE CASES IT IS OBSERVED THAT RAILWAYS DO NOT PUT THE DELIVERY BOOK IN USE BY THE CUSTOMER AT DHANBAD.  14/Jul/2010  SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE : CLAIM FOR SHORTAGE OF 702 LTRS OF HSD FROM TANK WAGON NO. WR 72043 BOOKED UNDER INV/RR NO. 4/485334 DT. 30.09/01.10.05, EX. RBH TO DHN. RAILWAYS ARGUMENT : REQUEST FOR JOINT DIP MEASUREMENT NOT SUBMITTED BY THE CONSIGNEE, NO ADVERSE REMARKS PUT BY THE PARTY ON OPT 18. PARTY¿S SIGNATURE IN DELIVERY BOOK WITHOUT ANY QUALIFIED REMARKS. THEREFORE DELIVERY TREATED AS DCR.  12/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 129  OC/3/2008  2100800015 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  77858  EC  RCT/RNC  CLAIM WAS LODGED FOR SHORT RECEIPT OF PRODUCT FROM 2 NO. OF WAGONS (NOS. WR 986539 & WR 986559 BOOKED UNDER INV/RR NO. 2/682149 DT. 08.11.2005, EX. NMGS TO DHN)AT OUR DHANBAD DEPOT. TOP MANHOLE SEAL OF THE WAGONS WERE BROKEN AND WE HAD MADE APPEAL FOR JOINT CHECKING TO HTNC, DHANBAD/ AMY, DHANBAD / INSPECTOR, RPF, DHANBAD ON THE SAME DAY OF ITS RECEIPT ON 11.11.2005. ALL THE RAILWAYS SIGNED THE LETTER COPY (NO.DHN/12 DT 11.11.2005) BUT NEITHER RAILWAYS PAID ATTENTION TO TURN UP THE JOINT CHECKING NOR THEY RESPONDED ON OUR REQUEST LETTER. WE HAD NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO MAKE JOINT CHECKING WITH IOC AND HPC WHICH IS OUR INDUSTRY LEVEL POLICY AND IN VOGUE THROUGH THE COUNTRY. THIS JOINT CHECKING CERTIFICATE WAS SUBMITTED TO CCM (CLAIMS), EC RLY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO SETTLE THE CLAIM. CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED UNDER ¿RLY RISK¿ RATE BUT THE WAGONS WERE PLACED WITH SEAL BROKEN CONDITION WHICH PROVES THE GROSS NEGLIGENCE OF RLY WHILE THE SAME WAS UNDER RLY CUSTODY SINCE ITS DESPATCH TO DELIVERY BUT THE PRODUCT WAS PILFERED EN ROUTE. IN MOST OF THE CASES IT IS OBSERVED THAT RAILWAYS DO NOT PUT THE DELIVERY BOOK IN USE BY THE CUSTOMER AT DHANBAD.  14/Jul/2010  SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE : CLAIM FOR SHORTAGE OF 2754 LTRS HSD FROM TANK WAGON NOS. WR 986539 & WR 986559 BOOKED UNDER INV/RR NO. 2/682149 DT. 08.11.2005, EX. NMGS TO DHN. RAILWAYS ARGUMENT : THE WAGON WAS DELIVERED TO THE CONSIGNEE UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT ON 31.05.06. NO SHORT CERTIFICATE/DDM HAS BEEN ISSUED AS CERTIFIED BY CGS/DHN. NO APPLICATION FOR JOINT DIP MEASUREMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PARTY. HENCE THE CLAIM FOR SHORTAGE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE.  12/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 130  OC/4/2008  2100800016 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  122234  EC  RCT/RNC  CLAIM FOR SHORTAGE OF 3308 LTRS MS FROM TANK WAGON NO. WR 986802 BOOKED UNDER INV/RR NO. 4/682151 DT. 08.11.05, EX. NMGS TO DHN. BPCL ARGUMENT: BPCL ON THE SAME DAY OF T/W RECEIPT (12.11.05), APPLIED FOR JOINT CHECKING (LETTER WAS ACKNOLWEDGED BY THE CH.TRAIN CLERK, AMY AND RPF INSPECTOR) AT 08-50 AM TO RAILWAYS BUT NO OFFICIAL FROM RAILWAYS TURNED UP TO WITNESS THE JOINT CHECKING. WE THE OIL INDUSTRY MEMBERS (IOC/BPC/HPC) AS A PRACTICE CARRIED OUT THE JOINT CHECKING AND FOUND TOTAL SHORTAGE OF 3308 LTS MS.  20/Jul/2010  SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE : CLAIM FOR SHORTAGE OF 3308 LTRS MS FROM TANK WAGON NO. WR 986802 BOOKED UNDER INV/RR NO. 4/682151 DT. 08.11.05, EX. NMGS TO DHN. RAILWAYS ARGUMENT : NO JOINT DIP MEASUREMENTS WITNESS BY THE RAILWAY REPRESENTATIVE. PARTY DID NOT APPLY FOR JOINT DIP. HENCE THE CASE WAS CLOSED TREATING AS DELIVERED UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT AT CLAIM STAGE ON 08.05.06.  12/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 131  OC/17/2008  2100800033 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  88264  EC  RCT/RNC  THE T/WS WERE PLACED AT SIDING ON 18.12.06 AT 06:00 HRS AND JOINT CHECKING WAS DONE ON 18.12.06 AT 13:00 HRS. THE JT.CERTIFICATE WAS SIGNED BY S.I., RPF, DHANBAD, CGS, DHANBAD AND BPCL OFFICER. RAILWAY¿S STAFF GET THE OPT 18 SIGNED BY THE BPC OFFICER AT THE TIME OF RAKE PLACEMENT IN GENERAL AND THEREFORE THE SCOPE TO WRITE ABOUT SHORTAGES ON OPT 18 IS NOT POSSIBLE. THE JOINT CERTIFICATE SIGNED BY THE RAILWAYS AND OIL COMPANY OFFICERS IS TAKEN GRANTED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. IN MANY LOCATIONS OPT 18 IS NOT EVEN SERVED AT ALL.  23/Feb/2011  SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE : CLAIM FOR SHORTAGE OF 3024 LTRS HSD FROM TANK WAGON NOS. NR 108273, WR 896565 & NR 95517 BOOKED UNDER INV/RR NO. 03/699174 DT. 13.12.06, EX. NMGS TO DHN. RAILWAYS ARGUMENT : AS PER JOINT DIP MEASUREMENT REPORT AND COPY OF DDM, THERE WAS NO SIGN OF LEAKAGE. NO ADVERSE REMARKS BY PARTY ON OPT 18. HENCE THE CASE WAS REPUDIATED AS DELIVERED UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT.  12/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 132  OC/9001/2009  2100900002 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  0  EC  Case Settled by RCT RANCHI on 22-APR-16 in favour of Party  CLAIM FOR SHORTAGE OF 2195 LTRS MS FROM TANK WAGON NO. WR 946920 BOOKED UNDER INV/RR NO. 01/688489 DT. 16.10.07, EX. NMGS TO DHN. BPCL ARGUMENT: THE JOINT CHECKING WAS SIGNED BY RAILWAY OFFICIALS 1.ASSTT.SUB INSPECTOR, RPF, DHANBAD 2. C.G.S., DHANBAD 3) HTNC, DHANBAD BUT TXR DHANBAD DID NOT SIGN FOR UNKNOWN REASON. IN THE SHORT CERTIFICATE IT WAS CLEARLY REMARKED "CONDITION OF SEALS - TOP AND BOTTOM BOTH SEALS WERE MISSING AND OIL WAS LEAKING FROM BOTTOM (N/S-K/E VALVE). TXR ATTENDED BUT REFUSED TO SIGN IN JOINT CHECKING REPORT". RAILWAYS CAN NOT REPUDIATE OUR FULL PROOF CASE WHEN BOTTOM WAS FOUND LEAKING.  20/Jul/2010  SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE : CLAIM FOR SHORTAGE OF 2195 LTRS MS FROM TANK WAGON NO. WR 946920 BOOKED UNDER INV/RR NO. 01/688489 DT. 16.10.07, EX. NMGS TO DHN. RAILWAYS ARGUMENT : AS PER RR REMARK, WAGON SEALED/LABELED AND DIP MEASUREMENT WAS DONE BY THE SENDER, LOADING NOT SUPERVISE BY RAILWAY STAFF. HENCE THE CLAIM WAS REPUDIATED ON 01.05.08.  12/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 133  OC/6/2010  2100900005 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  73349  EC  RCT/PNBE  T/WAGON (NO.WR 946957) WAS BOOKED FROM NMGS TO NRPA ON 04.01.2008 UNDER RR NO. 702544. ON ARRIVAL OF THE WAGON AT DESTINATION, SEALS WERE FOUND BROKEN AND JOINT CHECKING WAS DONE ON 07.01.2008. WE HEREAFTER PURSUED LONG TIME WITH RAILWAYS TO OBTAIN SHORT CERTIFICATE FOR LODGING OUR CLAIM WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS BUT WE RECEIVED THE SHORT CERTIFICATE DATED 29.11.2008 ON 30.11.2008. WE KNOW THAT LODGING OF CLAIM SHOULD BE WITHIN 6 MONTHS BUT IN OUR CASE, ENTIRE ENDEAVORS FAILED TO GET THE SHORT CERTIFICATE ON TIME. IN THIS REGARD WE SERVED OUR CLAIM NOTICE ON 28.04.08 UNDER OUR LETTER REF NO. MZP/RLY. LOCAL RAILWAY ISSUED SHORT CERTIFICATE ON 29.11.08 VIDE NO. 603141 AND WE COULD LODGE OUR CLAIM ONLY ON 12.12.08 AFTER OUR OFFICIAL FORMALITIES I.E. AFTER 12 DAYS. THE REASON OF LATE SUBMISSION OF OUR CLAIM LIES ONLY WITH LOCAL RAILWAYS ONLY AND THEREFORE WE REQUEST YOU KINDLY TO RE-LOOK THE CASE HISTORY AND RESOLVE OUR CLAIM PLEASE. OUR CASE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS "TIME BARRED CASE".  15/Jul/2010  12 TANK WAGONS LOADED WITH HSD BOOKED EX NMGS TO NRPA UNDER INV/RR NO. 39/702544 DATED 04.01.08. CLAIMED FOR SHORTAGE OF 2595 LTRS HSD FROM WAGON NO. WR946957 CONTAINING 65520 LTRS HSD. ARGUMENT- THE NOTICE U/S 106 OF RA 1989 HAS NOT BEEN SERVED WITHIN 06 MONTHS. THE DATE OF BOOKING IS 04.01.08 & NOTICE SERVED ON 23.12.08.HENCE THE CASE IS REPUDIATED AS TIME BARRED AT CLAIMS STAGE ON 13.01.09.  15/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 134  OC/2/2010  2100900006 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  137801  EC  RCT/PNBE  T/WAGON (NO.WR 906658, NR 108098) WERE BOOKED FROM NMGS TO NRPA ON 16.12.2007 UNDER RR NO. 702345. ON ARRIVAL OF THE WAGON AT DESTINATION, SEALS WERE FOUND BROKEN AND JOINT CHECKING WAS DONE ON 20.12.07. WE HEREAFTER PURSUED LONG TIME WITH RAILWAYS TO OBTAIN SHORT CERTIFICATE FOR LODGING OUR CLAIM WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS BUT WE RECEIVED THE SHORT CERTIFICATE DATED 29.11.2008 ON 30.11.2008. WE KNOW THAT LODGING OF CLAIM SHOULD BE WITHIN 6 MONTHS BUT IN OUR CASE, ENTIRE ENDEAVORS FAILED TO GET THE SHORT CERTIFICATE ON TIME. IN THIS REGARD OUR LETTER NO. MZP/RLY DATED 28.04.08 MAY KINDLY BE REFERRED. LOCAL RAILWAY ISSUED SHORT CERTIFICATE ON 29.11.08 VIDE NO. 603140 AND WE COULD LODGE OUR CLAIM ONLY ON 12.12.08 AFTER OUR OFFICIAL FORMALITIES I.E. AFTER 12 DAYS. THE REASON OF LATE SUBMISSION OF OUR CLAIM LIES ONLY WITH LOCAL RAILWAYS ONLY AND THEREFORE WE REQUEST YOU KINDLY TO RE-LOOK THE CASE HISTORY AND RESOLVE OUR CLAIM PLEASE. OUR CASE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS "TIME BARRED CASE".  15/Jul/2010  7 TANK WAGONS LOADED WITH MS BOOKED EX NMGS TO NRPA UNDER INV/RR NO. 26/702345 DATED 16.12.07. CLAIMED FOR SHORTAGE OF 1393 & 2346 LTRS MS RESPECTIVELY FROM WAGON NO. WR906658 & NR108098 LOADED WITH 66760 & 67200 LTRS MS RESPECTIVELY. ARGUMENT- THE NOTICE U/S 106 OF RA 1989 HAS NOT BEEN SERVED WITHIN 06 MONTHS. THE DATE OF BOOKING IS 16.12.07 & NOTICE SERVED ON 23.12.08.HENCE THE CASE IS REPUDIATED AS TIME BARRED AT CLAIMS STAGE ON 13.01.09.  15/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 135  OC/4/2010  2100900007 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  15659  EC  RCT/PNBE  T/WAGON (NO.WR 906791) WAS BOOKED FROM NMGS TO NRPA ON 04.02.2008 UNDER RR NO. 788356. ON ARRIVAL OF THE WAGON AT DESTINATION, SEALS WERE FOUND BROKEN AND JOINT CHECKING WAS DONE ON 07.02.2008. WE HEREAFTER PURSUED LONG TIME WITH RAILWAYS TO OBTAIN SHORT CERTIFICATE FOR LODGING OUR CLAIM WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS BUT WE RECEIVED THE SHORT CERTIFICATE DATED 29.11.2008 ON 30.11.2008. WE KNOW THAT LODGING OF CLAIM SHOULD BE WITHIN 6 MONTHS BUT IN OUR CASE, ENTIRE ENDEAVORS FAILED TO GET THE SHORT CERTIFICATE ON TIME. IN THIS REGARD OUR LETTER NO. MZP/RLY DATED 28.04.08 MAY KINDLY BE REFERRED. LOCAL RAILWAY ISSUED SHORT CERTIFICATE ON 29.11.08 VIDE NO. 603142 AND WE COULD LODGE OUR CLAIM ONLY ON 12.12.08 AFTER OUR OFFICIAL FORMALITIES I.E. AFTER 12 DAYS. THE REASON OF LATE SUBMISSION OF OUR CLAIM LIES ONLY WITH LOCAL RAILWAYS ONLY AND THEREFORE WE REQUEST YOU KINDLY TO RE-LOOK THE CASE HISTORY AND RESOLVE OUR CLAIM PLEASE.OUR CASE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS "TIME BARRED CASE".  15/Jul/2010  12 TANK WAGONS LOADED WITH HSD BOOKED EX NMGS TO NRPA UNDER INV/RR NO. 55/688356 DATED 04.02.08. CLAIMED FOR SHORTAGE OF 554 LTRS HSD FROM WAGON NO. WR906791 CONTAINING 64200 LTRS HSD. ARGUMENT- THE NOTICE U/S 106 OF RA 1989 HAS NOT BEEN SERVED WITHIN 06 MONTHS. THE DATE OF BOOKING IS 04.02.08 & NOTICE SERVED ON 23.12.08.HENCE THE CASE IS REPUDIATED AS TIME BARRED AT CLAIMS STAGE ON 13.01.09.  15/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 136  OC/5/2010  2100900008 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  32251  EC  RCT/PNBE  T/WAGON (NO.NR90735) WAS BOOKED FROM NMGS TO NRPA ON 26.11.07 UNDER RR NO. 702183. ON ARRIVAL OF THE WAGON AT DESTINATION, SEALS WERE FOUND TOP SEAL MISSING AND BOTTOM SEAL ONE BROKEN AND ANOTHER MISSING, LEAKAGE THROUGH ONE FRONT AND ONE AT BACK SIDE DISCHARGE FLANGE. THE JOINT CHECKING WAS DONE ON 30.11.07. WE HEREAFTER PURSUED LONG TIME WITH RAILWAYS TO OBTAIN SHORT CERTIFICATE FOR LODGING OUR CLAIM WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS BUT WE RECEIVED THE SHORT CERTIFICATE DATED 29.11.2008 ON 30.11.2008. WE KNOW THAT LODGING OF CLAIM SHOULD BE WITHIN 6 MONTHS BUT IN OUR CASE, OUR ENTIRE ENDEAVORS FAILED TO GET THE SHORT CERTIFICATE ON TIME. IN THIS REGARD OUR LETTER NO. MZP/RLY DATED 28.04.08 MAY KINDLY BE REFERRED. LOCAL RAILWAY ISSUED SHORT CERTIFICATE ON 29.11.08 VIDE NO. 603142 AND WE COULD LODGE OUR CLAIM ONLY ON 12.12.08 AFTER OUR OFFICIAL FORMALITIES I.E. AFTER 12 DAYS. WE SERVED OUR CLAIM NOTICE ON 28.04.08 I.E. WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD AS PER RAILWAYS ACT. THE REASON OF LATE SUBMISSION OF OUR CLAIM LIES ONLY WITH LOCAL RAILWAYS ONLY AND THEREFORE WE REQUEST YOU KINDLY TO RE-LOOK THE CASE HISTORY AND RESOLVE OUR CLAIM PLEASE. OUR CASE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS "TIME BARRED CASE".  15/Jul/2010  12 TANK WAGONS LOADED WITH HSD BOOKED EX NMGS TO NRPA UNDER INV/RR NO. 17/702183 DATED 26.11.07. CLAIMED FOR SHORTAGE OF 1141 LTRS HSD FROM WAGON NO. NR90735 CONTAINING 65160 LTRS HSD. ARGUMENT- THE NOTICE U/S 106 OF RA 1989 HAS NOT BEEN SERVED WITHIN 06 MONTHS. THE DATE OF BOOKING IS 26.11.07 & NOTICE SERVED ON 23.12.08.HENCE THE CASE IS REPUDIATED AS TIME BARRED AT CLAIMS STAGE ON 13.01.09.  15/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 137  OC/7/2010  2100900009 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  393612  EC  RCT/PNBE  T/WAGON (NO.WR907020 & WR966867 ) WAS BOOKED FROM NMGS TO NRPA ON 24.01.2008 UNDER RR NO. 702879. ON ARRIVAL OF THE WAGON AT DESTINATION, SEALS WERE FOUND BROKEN AND JOINT CHECKING WAS DONE ON 28.01.2008. WE HEREAFTER PURSUED LONG TIME WITH RAILWAYS TO OBTAIN SHORT CERTIFICATE FOR LODGING OUR CLAIM WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS BUT WE RECEIVED THE SHORT CERTIFICATE DATED 03.12.2008 ON 03.12.2008. WE KNOW THAT LODGING OF CLAIM SHOULD BE WITHIN 6 MONTHS BUT IN OUR CASE, ENTIRE ENDEAVORS FAILED TO GET THE SHORT CERTIFICATE ON TIME. IN THIS REGARD OUR LETTER NO. MZP/RLY DATED 28.04.08 MAY KINDLY BE REFERRED. LOCAL RAILWAY ISSUED SHORT CERTIFICATE ON 03.12.08 VIDE NO. 603145 AND WE COULD LODGE OUR CLAIM ONLY ON 12.12.08 AFTER OUR OFFICIAL FORMALITIES I.E. AFTER 9 DAYS. THE REASON OF LATE SUBMISSION OF OUR CLAIM LIES ONLY WITH LOCAL RAILWAYS ONLY AND THEREFORE WE REQUEST YOU KINDLY TO RE-LOOK THE CASE HISTORY AND RESOLVE OUR CLAIM PLEASE. OUR CASE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS "TIME BARRED CASE".  16/Jul/2010  6 TANK WAGONS LOADED WITH MS BOOKED EX NMGS TO NRPA UNDER INV/RR NO. 50/702879 DATED 24.01.08. CLAIMED FOR SHORTAGE OF 4033 & 6647 LTRS MS RESPECTIVELY FROM WAGON NO. WR907020 & WR966867 CONTAINING 67200 LTRS MS EACH. ARGUMENT- THE NOTICE U/S 106 OF RA 1989 HAS NOT BEEN SERVED WITHIN 06 MONTHS. THE DATE OF BOOKING IS 24.01.08 & NOTICE SERVED ON 23.12.08.HENCE THE CASE IS REPUDIATED AS TIME BARRED AT CLAIMS STAGE ON 13.01.09.  15/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 138  OC/9/2010  2100900010 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  9667  EC  RCT/PNBE  T/WAGON (NO.WR 956613) WAS BOOKED FROM NMGS TO NRPA ON 04.02.2008 UNDER RR NO. 688357. ON ARRIVAL OF THE WAGON AT DESTINATION, SEALS WERE FOUND BROKEN AND JOINT CHECKING WAS DONE ON 07.02.2008. WE HEREAFTER PURSUED LONG TIME WITH RAILWAYS TO OBTAIN SHORT CERTIFICATE FOR LODGING OUR CLAIM WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS BUT WE RECEIVED THE SHORT CERTIFICATE DATED 03.12.2008 ON 03.12.2008. WE KNOW THAT LODGING OF CLAIM SHOULD BE WITHIN 6 MONTHS BUT IN OUR CASE, ENTIRE ENDEAVORS FAILED TO GET THE SHORT CERTIFICATE ON TIME. IN THIS REGARD OUR LETTER NO. MZP/RLY DATED 28.04.08 MAY KINDLY BE REFERRED. LOCAL RAILWAY ISSUED SHORT CERTIFICATE ON 29.11.08 VIDE NO. 603144 AND WE COULD LODGE OUR CLAIM ONLY ON 12.12.08 AFTER OUR OFFICIAL FORMALITIES I.E. AFTER 13 DAYS. THE REASON OF LATE SUBMISSION OF OUR CLAIM LIES WITH LOCAL RAILWAYS ONLY AND THEREFORE WE REQUEST YOU KINDLY TO RE-LOOK THE CASE HISTORY AND RESOLVE OUR CLAIM PLEASE. OUR CASE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS "TIME BARRED CASE".  16/Jul/2010  12 TANK WAGONS LOADED WITH HSD BOOKED EX NMGS TO NRPA UNDER INV/RR NO. 56/688357 DATED 04.02.08. CLAIMED FOR SHORTAGE OF 342 LTRS HSD FROM WAGON NO. 956613 CONTAINING 65160 LTRS HSD. ARGUMENT- THE NOTICE U/S 106 OF RA 1989 HAS NOT BEEN SERVED WITHIN 06 MONTHS. THE DATE OF BOOKING IS 04.02.08 & NOTICE SERVED ON 23.12.08.HENCE THE CASE IS REPUDIATED AS TIME BARRED AT CLAIMS STAGE ON 13.01.09.  15/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 139  OA/285/2006  2160600239 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  62323  WC  Case Settled by RCT BHOPAL on 07-SEP-11 in favour of Party  CLAIM FOR NON DELIVERY OF TW NO. ER-64359 WHICH WAS BOOKED VIDE RR NO.598006 DT.14.11.2003, PREFERRED WITH WEST CENTRAL RLY VIDE LETTER REF.NO. SD/WCR/E/07/2004-05 DT. 20.04.2004 FOR RS 351656/-. WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY AFTER LAPSE OF NINE MONTH INFORMED VIDE LETTER REF.NO.WCR/JBP/002/STA/4/2004 DATED 12.07.2004 THAT, ABOVE MENTIONED TANKWAGON REACHED TO JABALPUR ON 16.11.2003 AND SAME WAS DETACHED DUE HEAVY LEAKAGE AND SAME WAS DELIVERED TO BPCL,BHITONI SIDING ON 17.11.2003. ON OUR INTERNAL ENQUIRY WE COULD FOUND THAT, TANK WAGON WAS UNLOADED BY IOCL,BHITONI BY TAKING OPEN DELIVERY. IN JOINT CERTIFICATE IT IS RECORDED THAT, TANKWAGON DEVELOPED LEAKAGE DUE TO BREAK OF WELD JOINT AT 6¿ AND 7¿ ON UPPER SIDE OF WHEEL TOWARDS ET END(RIGHT SIDE). LEAKAGE WAS DEVELOPWD WHILE RAKE WAS RUNNING. THEREFORE, TO AVOID FURTHER LOSSES AND DAMAGE TO THE TANKWAGON RAILWAY DELIVERED PRODUCT TO IOC, BHITONI. IN OPEN DELIVERY RECORDED SHORTAGE OF 3557 LTRS AMOUNTING TO RS.62324/- HENCE ACCORDINGLY CLAIM CONVERTED TO SHORTAGE CLAIM ON 20.09.2005.CCM, WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 27.1.2006 REPUDITED THE CLAIM SAYING FOR MUTUAL ADJUSTMENT. AN APPEAL WAS MADE VIDE OUR LETTER DATED 18.09.2006 AND REQUESTED TO CONSIDER CLAIM FOR SETTLEMENT. FINALLY SUIT FILED IN RCT,BHOPAL IN 2006 TO PROTECT IOC,INTEREST.TILL DATE RCT, BHOPAL HAS NOT DELIVERED JUDGMENT.  11/Apr/2011  AS PER THE DISPATCH PARTICULARS THE DIP AT THE TIME OF LOADING WAS 186.01 CMS (24070 LITS). AT THE TIME OF DECANTATION THE JOINT.AS PER THE CALIBRATION CHART THE DIFFERENCE OF TWO DIP MEASUREMENTS SHORTAGE COMES TO 3557 LITRES.  12/Nov/2012  Yes  Yes  Yes  No
 140  OA/6/2009  2160900001 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  17970  WC  RCT/BPL  BPC DISPATCHED 65400 LITRES OF HIGH SPEED DIESEL (HSD) UNDER RR.NO. 882340 DATED 21.12.05 EX MANGLIA TO BHITONI. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS ACCEPTED BY WESTERN RAILWAY AT RAILWAYS RISK. SINCE THE CONSIGNMENT WAS NOT RECEIVED AT DESTINATION BPC PREFERRED A CLAIM FOR THE NON-RECEIPT OF 65400 LITRES ON CCO, W.CRLY. JABALPUR VIDE LETTER NO. W.LOG.FRT.2.HSD 05-06/2 DATED 24.2.06 AMOUNTING TO `.1766456.00 WITH A NOTICE OF CLAIM TO CCO,WRLY., CHURCHGATE MUMBAI FOR REFUND OF FREIGHT/DIFFERENCE IF THE TW IS DECANTED SHORT OF DESTINATION.THE SAID CLAIM WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BY CCO,WRLY VIDE LETTER NO. C/RFG/A1/ROIL/608050500596/JABALPUR/P.O.L/03/2005 DATED 23.3.07..AS THE TANKWAGON WAS LEAKING, RAILWAYS DELIVERED THE TANKWAGON TO IOC AT ITARSI.SINCE THE FREIGHT WAS PAID BY BPC TO WESTERN RAILWAY UPTO BHITONI AND THE WAGON WAS DELIVERED AHEAD OF DESTINATION VIZ ITARSI, BPC PREFERRED A CLAIM ON CCO,WRLY CHURCHGATE FOR REFUND OF DIFFERENTIAL FREIGHT BEARING REFERENCE RET.LOG.FRT.HSD 2006/1 DATED 4.7.06 FOR ` 17970.00.SUBSEQUENTLY BPC REQUESTED RAILWAYS TO ARRANGE THE SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIM VIDE REMINDER LETTERS DATED 7.9.06,05.03.07, 8.6.07 AND 20.5.08.AS THE CLAIM WAS NOT SETTLED, BPC FILED APPLICATION IN RCT BHOPAL BEARING REFERENCE.OA 6/2009. WE THEREFORE PRAY THAT THE RAILWAYS BE ORDERED AND DECREED TO PAY BPC THE SUM OF `.17970.00 AND THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 18% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF APPLICATION TILL THE DATE OF ORDER AND THEREAFTER AT THE SAME RATE TILL THE PAYMENT IS MADE AND COST OF APPLICATION  22/Jun/2011  THE RAKE WAS BOOKED BY BPCL FROM MANGALIA GAON TO BHITONI ONE WAGON NO-WR 966859 WAS DETACHED AND DECANTED AT ET BY IOC DUE TO LEAKAGE. THERE WAS NO SHORTAGE OF POL REPORTED.  14/Nov/2012  Yes  Yes  Yes  No
 141  1  2010300760 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  8906  CR  HC/JBP  1  27/Jan/2015  1  27/Jan/2015  Yes  Yes  No  No
 142  1  2010300760 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  8906  CR  HC/JBP  1  27/Jan/2015  1  27/Jan/2015  Yes  Yes  No  No
 143  1  2010300760 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  8906  CR  HC/JBP  1  27/Jan/2015  1  27/Jan/2015  Yes  Yes  No  No
 144  1  2010300760 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  8906  CR  HC/JBP  1  27/Jan/2015  1  27/Jan/2015  Yes  Yes  No  No
 145  1  2010300760 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  8906  CR  HC/JBP  1  27/Jan/2015  1  27/Jan/2015  Yes  Yes  No  No
 146  1  2010400337 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  202348  CR  HC/ALD  1  20/Mar/2015  1  20/Mar/2015  No  No  No  No
 147  12345  2020302236 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  79436  ER  HC/KOL  12345  08/Mar/2017  12345  08/Mar/2017  No  No  No  No
 148  12345  2020302268 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  93246  ER  HC/KOL  12345  08/Mar/2017  set&set|  08/Mar/2017  No  No  No  No
    Total Argument Cases    148