Railway’s Freight Folly: Supreme Court Nixes Appeals Against Indian Oil Over Billing Blunder

In a legal tussle revolving around freight charges, the Supreme Court recently dealt a blow to the Railways, deeming their charge to Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) as illegal for a stretch of 444 kilometers, despite the actual distance being approximately 334 kilometers.

Rendered by Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, the verdict came in response to the Railways’ appeals against a prior ruling by the Allahabad High Court, which sided with IOC.

**Chronicle of Events**

During 2002-2005, IOC dispatched furnace oil shipments via Railways over a specified route. Freight charges were computed based on a ‘total chargeable distance’ of 444 kilometers, as per prevailing distance metrics. However, in April 2004, the Railways altered their distance calculation method, necessitating revisions in distance tables.

Subsequently, IOC discovered that the physical track length for the designated route remained unchanged, with the actual distance measuring 333.18 kilometers. Despite this revelation, Railways continued to levy freight charges for 444 kilometers. Upon issuing a claim notice to demand a refund for the 110-kilometer disparity in freight charges across 122 consignments, Railways rebuffed all claims.

IOC then sought recourse through the Railway Claims Tribunal, resulting in partial refunds for 45 claims made within the statutory six-month window prescribed by Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989. However, the remaining 77 applications were dismissed as time-barred, despite acknowledgment that the chargeable distance was only 334 kilometers, contrary to the levied 444 kilometers.

**Legal Deliberations**

At the heart of the matter were three pivotal questions addressed by the Supreme Court:

1. The interpretation of Section 106(3) of the Railways Act, 1989, and the distinction between an “overcharge” and an “illegal charge.”
2. The classification of IOC’s claim for a 110-kilometer freight refund and its compatibility with Section 106(3).
3. The determination of whether the 110-kilometer discrepancy warranted a refund, signaling an illegal charge.

**Judicial Insights**

The Supreme Court discerned that Section 106(3) pertained solely to overcharges, necessitating a reevaluation of refund claims within the prescribed time frame. Distinguishing between overcharges and illegal charges, the Court elucidated that while an overcharge exceeded lawful dues, an illegal charge violated legal provisions altogether.

Moreover, the Court clarified that the mere application of an incorrect or higher slab-rate did not constitute an illegal charge unless the basis of the charge itself was unlawful.

In light of the foregoing, the Court dismissed Railways’ appeals, affirming the illegality of charging based on a 444-kilometer distance. Despite Railways’ failure to substantiate the correctness of the chargeable distance, the Court upheld that the computation was flawed and hence illegal.


The legal saga underscored the distinction between overcharges and illegal charges, emphasizing the necessity for refunds to be aligned with legal parameters. With Railways’ appeals dismissed, the verdict stands as a testament to the judiciary’s vigilance in upholding lawful practices in commercial transactions.

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [1.39 MB]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Scroll to Top