# [1967] 3 S.C.R. 219 - **Citation:** [1967] 3 S.C.R. 219 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1967-03-21 - **Bench:** K. N. Wanchoo, V. Bhargava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1967-3-s-c-r-219-4200 - **Pages:** 19 ## Headnote March 21, 1967 Indian Railways Act, 1890, ss. 29 and 41-Charges made by Railways for maintenance, etc. of "assisted siding" constructed to facilitate goods traffic and for shunting wagon to and from compa11ys' mill-Services rendered by Railways not under any statutory duty but under prlvale agreement-Railways giving notice of enhancement of charges-Whether such charges fall within expression 'any other charge' in ss. 29 ( 2) and 4!(1)(c). Therefore wheth:r complaint alleging charges unreasonable can be entertained by Railway Rates Tribunal under s. 41(1)(c). The predecessor of the appellant Railway entered into an agreement in November, 1933, with the respondent company, which had a large sugar mill, for the construction of two "assisted sidings" to facilitate the nlovenent of goods. iraffic to and from the sugar mill. Under the agreement, part of the expenditure was met by the company and it was provided that the company would pay an annual contribution to the Railways for the use of the Railway portion of the siding and in lieu of paying separately the interest and maintenance cost of the siding. It was further provided that in the event of the contribution not being sufficient to meet the cost of the working of the siding, the Railway was entiUed, ou giving six months notice, to modify tho contribut'on and charge the company such higher amount as it may consider necessary. By virtue of another arrangement between the Railway and the Company, at the company's request, the Railway would arrange for the shunting of wagons from the Company's factory yard to the Railway lines and for doing so, the Railway would charge the company a shunting engine charge calculated at a fixed rate per hour. In February 1958, the Railwav gave notice of increased charge.'l to be paid instead of the fixed contribution. It also demanded an increased •hunting engine charge. The company thereupon filed a complaint under s .. 4l(l)(c) of the Indi~n .Railways Act, 1890 bef~re the Railway Rates Tnbunal at MadraJ, cla1mmg that the charges claimed by the Railway ~ere un!eason~ble and requesting the Tribunal to fix reasonable charges in exerc1rrges being levied by the Railway arooe only as a result of a voluntary agreement which the Railway, at its option, might have refused 10 enter into. [226H; 2278, E-F] Ha/sbury's Laws of Engla11d, 2nd Edn. Vol. 27, Paras 434 arnl 436 at p. 196; referred to. (ii) The figures of the proposed increase in char~es given on behalf of the company,. which were challenged in the complamt, did prima facie indicate that the rates fixed and demanded were unreasonable. It could not therefore be held that the Tribunal committed any error in going into the evidence given on behalf of the Railway and arriving at reasonable rates aftet a full consideration of that evidence and the evidence tender~ -ed on behalf of the company. [229E, F-G] (iii) It was necessary to include a margin of profit in the ';shunting engine charge" fixed by the Tribunal and (upon an examination of the evidence) to revise the siding charges. [The Court therefore itself fixed the rates for the charges to he levied by the Railway]. CIVIL APPELLATE JuRJSDJCTIOll: Civil Appeal No. 610 ol 1965. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 31, 1963 of the Railway Rates Tribunal, Madras in Complaint No. I of 1962. N. S. Hindra, R. H. Dhebar for R. N. Sachthey, for the appel· !ant. A. K. Sen, B. P. Maheshwari and R. K. Chaudhary, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bbargava, J. Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd., Riga, (hereinafter refer· red to as "the Company") was incorporated in the year 1932. Soon after the incorporation o~ the Company, the ~omp~ny esta~ lished a. fairly large sugar mill near railway stat10n Riga. Tuts A B c D E F G H A B c D E r G H UNION 1'. SUGAR MILLS ASSOCN, (Bhargava, /.) 221 station was on the railway line of the Bengal an~ ~orth Western Railway which, at that time, was owned by a hm1ted Company known as the Bengal and North Western R~il~ay Limit~d. At Riga railway station, the Railway had two mam lines runmng, one along the passenger platfonn, and another forming a loop ~gainst it running parallel to the first line with points on both s1d:s. of the platform for taking the railway trains to line 2 when amvmg from either direction at Riga railway station. For the sake of convenience, the line along. the passenger platform will be referred to as line l, and the other main line forming the loop as line 2. In addition, there was a goods platform and a line was run connecting line 1 to the line along the goods platform fro~ both directions. That line is to be referred to hereinafter as !me 5. Since the sugar factory of the Company was established close to Riga station, considerable goods traffic started being received for the Company and, at the same time, goods traffic was also booked by the Company for outward transmission from this station. D~r ing the crushing season, a large number of wagons loaded with sugarcane used to be received and, under the existing constructions of the Railway, delivery of the sugarcane had to be taken from the goods wagons on line 5 at the goods platform. Since the traffic was considerable, it became inconvenient and, consequently, an arrangement was entered into between the Railway and the Company for construction of two sidings, described as assisted sidings. In pursuance of this arrangement, two further lines (hereinafter referred to lines 3 & 4) were laid between lines 2 and 5 running parallel to these lines. Trains from line 1 could be taken to lines 3 and 4 from both directions in the same manner as they could be taken to line 5. At the time of construction of these assisted sidings represented by lines 3 and 4, an agreement was entered into between the Railway and the Company on 21st November, 1933. Under that agreement, part of the expenditure on the construction of these assisted sidings was met by the Company, while part of the expenditure was incurred by the Railway. It was agreed m that agreement .that the Company will pay in advance, in two equal half-yearly mstalments on the first day of April and the fi~st ~ay of October respectively in each half-year, a fixed contnbut10n. of Rs. 709/8/- per half-year to the Railway for the use of the rallway portion of the siding. The agreement proceeded to lay down that th". p~yment of !his contribution by the Company was to be !aken m lieu of paymg separately for interest on, and cost .of mam~enance of, the permanent-way, points and crossings and mterl~c~mg connected therewith and for freight on the traffic over the s1d~ng.. It was further agreed that, in the event of the abov~ contnbutm? .not being sufficient to meet the cost of the workmf of. the s1.dm.g, th". Railway was entitled, on giving six m?nt~s notice of tis mtention to do so, to modify the above contnbut10n and charge the Company such higher amount as it may 222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1967] 3 S.C.R. consider necessary to meet the increased cost of working. Further railway lines were also laid from Riga railway station up to the factory of the Company. A line ran from the junction of lines 3 and 4 on the western side of the station in a semi-circular loop and then entered the factory of the Company where the line was connected to four different lines. This line, running from the junction up to a point where there was further bifurcation of lines, will be referred to as line .6. At the end of line 6, this line was connected to two lines, one situated to the south, and the other to the north. There was also a loop form~d by connecting the northern line to the southern line by another connecting line. This loop is to be referred to as line 7. Lines 6 and 7 were laid at the cost .of the Company. The arrangement was that the Company was to take delivery of its sugarcane wagons as well as all other goods on lines 3 and 4 at the assisted sidings. Thereafter, it was the duty of the Company to unload the wagons there, or to have them rolled into their own factory yard. It appears that the Company purchased a railway engine and used it for taking the loaded wagons to the factory and bringing back the unloaded wagons to these lines 3 and 4. For outward traffic also, the empty wagons often used to be loaded in the factory yard and brought by the factory engine to Riga railway station. On some occasions, the wagons were taken by being pushed by manual labour instead of using the engine. A third alternative was that the Company would request the Railway to arrange for the shunting of their wagons from lines 3 and 4 to the factory yard. Whenever this arrangement was adopted, the Railway charged the factory for this service rendered. It appears that between the years 1956-57 to 1958·59, the Railway used to charge the Company at the rate of Rs. 18/ • pe~ hour, computing the time taken by the shunting engine in completing the work of the Company. The time computed began when the shunting engine came to lines 3 and 4 to take away the Company's wagons, and ended when the engine returned to the railway station after completing the work of shunting the wagons. Sometimes, on return, the engine brought empty wagons, but this was considered immaterial, because the charge was made from the Company by the Railway on the basis of the time actually taken by the shunting engine calculated @ Rs. 18/ • per hour. This rate of Rs. 18/. per hour will be described hereafter as the rate of the shunting engine charge. It may be mentioned that, in the year 1942, the Bengal and North Western Railway was taken over by the Indian Government and, at the relevant time in the year 1958, the Railway was owned by the Union Government and was run under the name of North Eastern Railway, which is the name it continues to bear at present. The arrangement, mentioned above, co!1tinued up t? 8th February, 1958. On this date, a notice was given by the Railwav c D F G H A B c D , G H UNION v. SUGAR MILLS ASSOCN. (Bhargava, !.) 223 to the Company proposing enhancement of the charges to be levied in pursuance of the agreement which had been entered into on 21st November, 1933, under which the Railway was empowered to enhance the charges, if it considered it necessary to meet the increased cost of the working of the assisted sidings. By this letter dated 8th February, 1958, the Railway gave six months' notice of enhancement of the charges, after mentioning that the fixed contribution of Rs. 709/8/- per half-year for use of the Railway portion of the siding in lieu of paying separately for interest on, and cost of maintenance of, the permanent-way, points and crossings and interlocking connected therewith and for freight on the traffic over the siding was not considered sufficient to meet the cost of present-day working of the siding. The charges to be levied in lieu of existing fixed contribution were mentioned as a sum of Rs. 603.7nP per half-year in respect of interest on the capital and cost of maintenance of the permanent way, points and crossings and interlocking connected therewith, while for the freight on the traffic over the siding, described as the siding charge, the Railway demanded Re. 1 /- per 4-wheeled wagon hauled over the siding, subject to a minimum of Rs. 7 /- per shunt. The new rates were to come into force with effect from 10th August, 1958. Though the Company did not agree to these new rates, the Railway demanded payment at these rates and, ultimately, the Company was informed by the Railway that, if payments at new rates were not made, the facility of the assisted siding would be withdrawn. The Company made payments under protest. Further, the Railway also enhanced the rate for the shunting engine charge. The rate was enhanced to Rs. 28/- per hour for the year 1959-60 and to Rs. 30/50nP per hour for the year 1960-61. The Company, bein~ dissatisfied with these charges, filed a complaint under section 4l(l)(c) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (h~reinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Railway Rates Tn?unal at Madras (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") agamst the enhancement of the shunting engine charges from Rs. 18/- per hour to Rs. 28/- and subsequently Rs. 30/50nP per ~our, as -well as the enhancement of the siding charges by prescribmg a scale of payment @ Re. 1/- per wagon with a minimum of Rs_. 7 /- per s.hunt. It appears. that there were a large number of sugar mills s1tuate.d along van?us railway stations served by the North Eastern Railway, and with them also there existed similar arrangeme~ts as the one arrived at between the Railway and the Company m 1933 under the agreement mentioned above. All t!1ese sug~r mills Vfe~e membe.rs. of the Indian Sugar Mills Associat10~. This Association also iomed as a complainant in the complamt of the Company representing all its constituent sugar mills. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, however, the Indian Sugar Mills Association did not take any active part and the case was 224 SUPREME COURT· REPORTS (1967) 3 S.C.R. act~ally fought out by the Company. It was urged in the complaint that both the shunting engine charges and the siding charges at the enhanced rates claimed by.the Railway were unreasonable and the Tribunal was requested to fix reasonable charges in exercise of its powers under s. 41(3) of the Act. The complaint was contested by the Railway on three grounds. The first ground was that the charges, to which the complaint related, were in respect of services which the Railway was not bound to render to the Company and was rendering under private agree· ments with the Company and, consequently, no complaint could be filed under s. 41 of the Act challenging them on the ground of being unreasonable. This plea was taken on the basis that the expression "any other charge" ins. 41(1)(c) of the Act could only cover a charge made by the Railway in discharge of its duties under the statute and could not cover a charge made by the Railway for voluntary services which the Railway might render under a private agreement of a commercial nature to any other party. The se«>nd ground was that the complainants had not succeeded in showing that the charges demanded by the Railway were unreason· able and, that burden of proof not having been discharged by the complainants, the Tribunal was not competent to call upon the Railway to prove the reasonableness of the charges and to reduce the charges only on the ground that the Railway had failed to establish their reasonableness. The third point of contest was that the rates, at which the charges were demanded by the Railway, were, in fact, reasonable and should not be reduced. The Tribunal held that the complaint was competent and that the expression "any other charge" in s. 41(l)(c) of the Act did cover both these charges to which the complaint related. The Tri· bunal did not, in specific words, hold that the complainants had established that the charges were unreasonable, before proceeding to examine the reasonableness of the charges. On the other hand, the Tribunal proceeded to examine the evidence of the parties adduced before it and came to the finding that, in both cases, the charges being demanded were unreasonable. Further. after examin· ing in detail the evidence given on behalf of the Railway, and on making its own computation, the Tribunal held that a sum of Rs. 20/- per hour was a reasonable rate for the shunting engine charge. In respect· of the siding charge, the Tribunal rejected the plea of the Railway that this charge should also be levied on the basis of the time taken in shunting the wagons of the Company to lines 3 and 4, after taking into account the shunting engine charge. lt was held that, in the original agreement of 1933, parties, had agreed to a lumpsum in respect of various services, and the subsequent conduct of the Railway established that, out of the total sum of Rs. 1,419/-per year, a sum of Rs. 1,206/14nP per year repreB c D F G H A B c D B ' G H UNION v. SUGAR MILLS ASSOCN. (Bhargava, J.) 225 sented charges in respect of interest c;>n the capita~ and c~st of maintenance of the permanent way, pomts and crossmg and mterlocking connected therewith. The remaining sum of Rs. 212 and odd was held to represent the freight on the traffic over the assisted sidin~ and was treated as the siding charge. In the absence of reliable material provided by the Railway for arriving at a reasonable figure on any other basis, the Tribunal held that the only amount which the Railway could be permitted in respect of the siding charge would be double the amount originally chargeable under the agreement of 1933 and, consequently, allowed the Rai!· way siding charge at a fixed rate of Rs. 424/- per year. It 1s against this decision of the Tribunal that the Ra!IV'.ay has come up in this appeal to this Court by special leave, and, m the appeal, has taken all the three points, mentioned above, on the basis of which the complaint before the Tribunal was resisted. Dealing with the first. question, which was the only questi?n of law raised in this case, learned counsel appearing for the Railway drew our attention to the definition of "railway" in s. 3(4) of the Act and, in particular, to clause (b) thereof under which the "railway" is defined to include all lines of rails, sidings or branches work· ed over for the purposes of, or in connection with, a railway. It was urged that the assisted sidings, comprised of lines 3 and 4, were not worked over for the purpose of, or in connection with, the work of the railway and, consequently, these assisted sidings could not be held to be a part of the railway. Attention was also drawn to s. 11 of the Act, which lays down the duty of the Railway to make and maintain certain works, to show that there was no duty on the Railway to maintain the permanent way, points and crossings and interiock;ing connections existing for the service of these assisted sidings, lines 3 and 4. The duties of the Railway in respect of goods traffic are laid down in s. 27 which requires the Railway to ~ffo~d all reasonable facilities for the receiving, foIV·arding and dehvenng of traffic upon and from the several railways belonging to o~ ~orked by it and for the return of rolling stock. Under this provmon also, there was no duty on the Railway to give delivery of goods to the Company on lines 3 and 4. The duty was to carry ~oods o~ th: Company an~ to d~liver them on line 5 which was the lme mamtamed by the Railway itself for delivery of goods It was ur~ed that, in th~se circumstances, it must be held that th~ charges levied by the Railway for taking the wagons, containing the goods ?f the Company, to lines 3 and 4, as well as the charges for renderm~ the sel'vice of taking the wagons of the Company to the prem1~es of its factory over lines 6 and 7 cannot be held to be charges levied for the purpose of performing any duty cast on the Railwav by the Act. Section 29 of the Act lays down how rates are to be ~xed. Under s" 29(1), the Central qovernment is empowered, by 0 eneral or special order, to fix maximum and minimum rates 226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1967] 3 S.<..R. for the whole or any part of a railway, and prescribe the conditions in which such rates will apply. Under sub-s. (2), the Ceniral Government is empowered, by a like order, to fix the rates of any other charges for the whole or any part of a railway and to prescribe the condition in which such rates of charges are to apply. It was urged that the charges now in dispute will not be charges covered by s. 29(1) or s. 29(2) of the Act, and, on the same basis, they will not be charges covered by s. 41 ( 1 )(b) or s. 41 (I )(c) of the Act. We are unable to accept this submission made on behalf of the Railway. It is correct that s. 29(1) of the Act will apply to rates of charges for carrying goods from station to station over the railway itself, in such a case, the Central Government can fix the maximum and minimum rates, whereas the actual rates to be charged can be fixed by the Railway Administration itself. If any person has a grievance that the rate being charged by the Railway is excessive, he can complain to the Tribunal, and the complaint would be covered by the provisions of s. 41(l)(b) of the Act. This charge for carriage of goods over the. railway or part of a railway is the only charge in respect of goods which can be the subjectmatter of a complaint under s. 41(1)(b) of the Act. The language of s. 4l(l)(b), by itself, excludes its applicability to passenger fares. Charges are often made by the Railway for wharfage and demurrage, but the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to deal with the fixation of these charges is expressly taken away bys. 45(l)(b) of the Act. Consequently, it appears that, in respect of a commodity carried by a railway over its own railway lines, the only charge that the Railway can levy, and which can be the subject-matter of a com• plaint under s. 41(1)(b), will be the charge for carriage of the commodity between two stations and it would be in respect of the discharge by the Railway of its statutory duty of carrying goods between stations maintained by it. There does not appear to be any other statutory duty in respect of which any other charge could be levied by the Railway, and, consequently, if the interpretation sought to be put on behalf of the Railway is accepted, the result would be that s. 29(2) will become ineffective and redundant, because there would be no other charges in respect of which fixation of rates by the Central Government would be required. Similarly, the provision contained in s. 41(1)(c) would also be redundant, as there would be no other charges in respect of which a complaint could be filed under this provision. It is clear that a complaint under s. 41(1)(b) relates to fixation of a rate relating to charges mentioned in s. 29(1), while s. 41(1)\c) relat~ to a complaint in re:rpect of any other charge mentioned m s. 29(2). It appears to us, in these circumstances, that the expression "any other charge" used in s. 29(2) and s. 4 l(l)(c) cannot be given the narrow me:aning of covering a charge in respect of the A B c . D E F G H B c D E II G H UNION v. SUGAR MILLS ASSOCN. (Bhargava, J.) 227 statutory duty of the Railway so as to exclude charges made or levied by the Railway for all other services. In this connection, the language used in clauses (b) and (c) of s. 41(1) is significant. Section 41(1)(b), as has been mentioned earlier, covers a complaint in respect of a charge for carriage of any commodity between two stations at a rate which is unreasonable, while s. 41(1) (c) relates to the levy of any other charge which is unreasonable. The expression "any other charge" in clause (c) must, therefore, cover charges which are not included in clause (b). Clause (b) specifically mentions charges for carriage of a commodity between two stations, and, hence, the expression "any other charge" in clause (c) must necessarily include within it a charge for carriage of any commodity between places other than two stations. In the present case, the shunting engine charge and the siding charge are both being levied by the Railway for carrying goods from the railway to sidings not forming part of the railway. In bringing goods from other stations to Riga station on Jines 1, 2 or 5, the railway would only be carrying the goods between stations. It is only thereafter, when the wagons are shunted by the railway to Jines 3 and 4 or over Jines 6 and 7 to the factory of the Company, that the railway will be carrying goods between a station and another place or between two different places which cannot either of them be described as stations. This charge for carriage of the commodity in the context in which the expression "any other charge" is used in s. 29(2) and s. 41(1)(c), must be covered by this expression. It appears to us to be immaterial that the charge being levied by the Railway for taking the wagons to the assisted sidings or to the factory of the Comeany arises only as a result of a voluntary agreement by the Railway which the Railway, at its option, might have refused to enter into. It is correct that the Railway was not bound to agree to carry the goods of the Company to the assisted siding or to. the factory of the Company; but .it seems to us that, once the Railway did, in fact, agree and decide to charge the Company for it, the Railway became bound to make the charge in accordance with s. 29 (2) of the Act. If a rate of charge is prescribed by the Central Governmen.t _under s. 2~(2) for such voluntary service and the person rece1vmg the service feels aggrieved, he can complain to the Tribunal ~nder s. 41(1)(c) of the Act and have the reasonable rate determmed. Even if no rate is prescribed by the Central Government under s. 29(2) and the Rai!way levies such a charge, it will be competent for the person aggrieved to file the complaint against the rate ~f charge ~fore the Tribunal under s. 4l(l)(c). In !his connec!Ion, it was urged by learned counsel that the expre~s10n "any ~ther charge" should not be given a very wide m~anmg and he cited before us instances of various other charges bemg made by the Railway, such as charges for advertisement on LS Sup. C. I./67-2 228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1967] 3 S.C.R. railway premises, catering charges, retiring room charges and time-table charges, to urge that at least these charges would not be covered by the expression "any other charge" in s. 41(1)(c) of the Act. It seems that, in this case, it is not at all necessary for us to examine whether charges of this nature mentioned by learned counsel will or will not be covered by the expres~ion "any other charge". In fact, we do not think it to be advisable that we should try to define the full scope of the expression "any other charge" in this case. It is enough to hold for the purposes of this case that at least the charges for carriage of goods from parts of the railway to points or places, not forming part of the railway, will certainly be covered by the expression "any other charge" used in s. 4l(l)(c), so that the complaint in the present case was competently entertained by the Tribunal. This view that we have arrived at is in line with the principles laid down in England as noted in Halsbury's Laws of England, 2nd Edn., Vol. 27, in paras 434 and 436 at p. 196. In para 434, the principle noted is that "loading and unloading, covering and uncovering. in classes 7 to 21, though performed at the private siding, are services otherwise provided for in the standard charges, and the company must charge for these either the standard or an exceptional rate. And where the Railway Rates Tribunal have by order fixed charges for serviees not included in conveyance and terminals, as long as the order stands unchallenged the company may only exact the charges fixed by the Tribunal and not what the company thinks are reasonable charges". Then; in para 436, it is said : "So, even when the carriage charges are paid by a siding owner who has entered into an express agreement to pay a fixed or ascertainable sum for the private siding services, he may still refer the matter to the Railway Rates Tribunal ...... The Tribunal may consider from a business point of view what is the money value of the services rendered or they may ascertain the total cost of .the services over a year and divide it by the number of. tons carried during the same period to give an addition to the tonnage rate". These principles clearly indicate that the Railway Rates Tribunal is competent to determine the reasonableness of charges for services by a railway even on private sidings. The same principle is incorporated in s. 41(1)(c) of the Act in India by empowering a complainant to complain to the Tnounal, if any charges, other than a charge for carriage of commodity between stations, is found to be unreasonable. The preliminary legal objection raised on behalf of the Railway was, therefore, rightly rejected l>y the Tribunal. On the second question, we find that, in the pleadings. taken before the Tribunal, the Railway did not in so many words specifically raise the issue that, before proceeding to examine the reaA B c D E F G H A > B c ' D -UNION·;,, SUGAR 'MILLS' ASSOCN. (Bhargava, J.) ,229 ~ . / sonableness of the rates demanded by the Railway, the Company should be called upon to show that those rates were unreasonable, though the issues, which wefe ·framed both· with :i:egard to the siding charges as well as the shunting engine chllfges, were couched in languagy enquiring whether the rates •demanded by the Railway were unreasonable. It appears that, in the. complaint, the Company. had mentioned figures 1 on !lie basis of which the Company requested-the Tribunal tQ .hold lhat these charges were unreasonable.' In respect of'-the· shunting engine charges, the pleading was that· the Railway had been charging the Company at a rate'of Rs. 18/- per hour for the years 1956-57 to 1:958-59 and had, then, suddenly r_aised the charges to Rs. 28/ • per hour :withr out any justification. This sudden enhancementdrom .Rs. 18/,- to RS. 28/-' per hour in, th« )'ear.il 959-60> was ~ged.to··be unreasonable. In the case" of siding• charges, the pleading [was that the"Cpmpany- had be~n paying earlier.a fi,xed._sum of~· 212/- per year, while, ·dftet'the enhancetiieht bY, the-.'ilotice dated 8th February, ,1958, the charges were 'So fixed that the burden orr·the Comp.any rose to· amounts in the ·next t!Jtee years varying between ·Rs. 7,752/- to Rs. 9,676/-. 'AC'Cording to'the Company,.thus,:the siding· charges· were fixed in such a manner that1•.after ·enhance' nl.en't, 'the· charges payable became 10· tc1"80 times ·the charges qrigin~lly"payabl&'. under the agr~~ment of 193 3. These figures g!vpn on behalf of the· c!ornpany. ·did,· p)'ima· 'fdcie, indicate, that tlie 'rates fixed and demande'll, which were ·challenged ·in· the com• plaint, were unreasonable. Further, the new rate of Re. If.•. pep wagon was, per se ,1,1nreasoni1ble inasmuch as"lhe cost incqrretl by the 'Railway on 'shunting the wagons could not be in ·proportion to the n'Umber of wagons shfinted 'and 'C'oaltl' not, in any case; be ss>' high as'.'io j~tlf}'. t~\s rati:'.even i_n cases -~hen ·:r'large .num. ber of wagohs were sliunted togeth~r IO one ·sIOgle shunt, :Conl s~uently, it was_ ~bnip~ten~1or the 'Fribunar tb cal~U'pon•the parl!cs to...adduce evidence 'and fo c!'eterinine ·V?hlit woul11 be the reason~ole_ ~11~e.s 'ac~~rdjpg to the T,ilbun~I' iis~lf. -'!;hat being the factual pO~ltI?n, we cannot n9Ja·th'at, the T{!biinal confmitted~any 'error ·in Jl'oing liito the evidence given ofr·behalf o~ the Railway antj. arriving at the! reasonable rates, after a full cbiisid,erlitiorr•of that e'vfdence arid" the evidence- tendered 'on beqalf bf the C61ii.- pal)y.' J~· is' to' be noi7d that thb- ne~~s~rJ'.'fac_t.s· fqt· ~~teiminifi~ what expenses the ~a1lway must be mcurrmg•m order to render the services for -"'.his:1t1t11~y ~ere geman,di'!g}:h;tr?es,~t.th~ impμ,g~ e:J rates wer'e IO ,the specij\I k!:1owl~cj~e',o'f11he .Ra1lway;a,uth'~m; !ICs only and, ~onsequeptly, whep~ subs~que~9Y the Tribunal eX3:, min~d' tl\is ,qil~S't,io11,; it .Proceede~1riglitiy ]ri x;af~lil)y scrutiriisin'l! th,e ,ev1~~nce _fe{laer~cl on bpf