JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mrs. U. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant 2. By filing this appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 30.11.2007, passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati, in Claim Application No. 282/2001. 3. The case of the appellant in short is that the appellant herein had booked a consignment of 1110 kattas of peas from Kanpur Central Goods Shed to Dimapur under Railway Receipt No. 062834 dated 12.04.1998. A certain part of consignment was found to be badly loose, damaged by wet, rotten, discoloured and was emitting bad smell. An assessment delivery was granted by the appellant and the same was assessed as 6160 kgs of peas. Consequently, a “Shortage Certificate” as well as “Open Delivery Report” was issued and in response to the claim, the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 50,452/- to the respondent herein vide cheque No. F-589749 dated 14.12.2000. The said cheque was handed over to the respondent herein by letter under No. C/61/IP/147DMV/9/98-HV dated 25.08.2000. 4. The stipulation contained in the said letter is quoted below:- “…… In case the above offer is not acceptable to you, the Cheque/Money order should be returned forthwith to this office, failing which it will be deemed that you accepted the offer in full and final satisfaction of your claim. The retention of the cheque and/or encashment thereof/acceptance of this money order will automatically amount to acceptance in full and final satisfaction of your above claim without reason and you will be stopped from claiming any further relief on the subject.” 5. Thereafter, the respondent had issued a protest letter dated 18.12.2000, which was served on the appellant on 22.12.2000, wherein it has been stated that the said cheque was retained under protest and it would be held back for 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter and, thereafter, they would encashed the cheque with right to realize the balance amount of the claim. Therefore, as their grievances were not redressed, the appellant approached the learned Railway Claims Tribunal by filing their claim application, which was registered as Application No. 282/2001, whereby a claim for Rs. 91,590/- was made, claiming realization of Rs. 41,138/- after deduction of the sum of Rs. 50,452/-, which was claimed to be received as part payment under protest. Therefore, as their grievances were not redressed, the appellant approached the learned Railway Claims Tribunal by filing their claim application, which was registered as Application No. 282/2001, whereby a claim for Rs. 91,590/- was made, claiming realization of Rs. 41,138/- after deduction of the sum of Rs. 50,452/-, which was claimed to be received as part payment under protest. The appellant herein contested the case by filing their written statement stating, inter alia, that the retention and encashment of the cheque amounted to acceptance in full and final settlement of the claim. An additional written reply was also submitted by the appellant. 6. The learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, had held that in the present case, it was evident that the respondent herein had encashed the cheque after clearly registering his protest to accept the amount as full and final settlement of the claim, for which it was further held that the action of encashment of the cheque cannot be taken as accepting the amount in full and final satisfaction of the claim. Accordingly, by assessing the price of peas at Rs. 12/- per kg, the amount came to Rs. 12/- x 6106 kg = Rs. 73,272/- and it was ordered that as the appellant had already settled the claim for Rs. 50,452/-, the respondent herein was entitled to the balance amount of Rs. 22,820/-. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal was preferred. 8. None appears on call for the respondent despite due service of notice. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant, by relying in the case of Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar –Vs- Union of India, reported in 2000 (3) GLT 66, which was subsequently followed by this Court in the case of General Manager (N. F. Railway), Maligaon –Vs- M/s. Jai Kissan Flour & Allied Products (order dated 29.01.2015, passed in MFA 127/2007), has submitted that as per the ratio of these two cases as indicated above, it has been settled by this Court that the cheque having not been returned, rather encashed, would lead to only the conclusion that the offer made by the appellant was accepted. By laying down the said ratio, this Court has further observed that merely by writing that the cheque was accepted under protest is inconsequential. 10. By laying down the said ratio, this Court has further observed that merely by writing that the cheque was accepted under protest is inconsequential. 10. In view of the said settled position of law, this Court is inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that as the offer for payment of Rs. 50,452/- was on condition that if the offer is not acceptable, the cheque should be returned forthwith, failing which, it would be deemed that the offer is accepted in full and final satisfaction of the claim. It is also found that the offer of making such payment was not with a condition that the same would be part payment of the total claim of the respondent. Hence, in view of the cases cited above, the impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2007, passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati, in Claim Application No. 282/2001 is not sustainable both in facts and laws. Hence, the said judgment is interfered with and the same is hereby set aside. 11. The appeal is allowed and the claim petition stands dismissed. 12. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 13. Return the LCR forthwith.