JUDGMENT : Kalyan Rai Surana, J. Heard Mr. B. Sarmah, the learned standing counsel for the Railways (appellants in MFA 67/14 & MFA 68/14 and respondent in MFA 72/2014). Also heard Mr. A. Goyal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent (in MFA 67/2014 and MFA 68/2014 and appellant in MFA 72/2014). 2. The learned counsel appearing for both sides jointly submit that the facts in all the three appeals are similar and common questions of law would arise for consideration in all the three appeals, as such, they jointly submit that all the appeals be taken up together. 3. All these three appeals have been preferred under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. (a). The challenge in MFA 67/2014 is the judgment and order dated 08.05.2014, passed by the learned Member Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in Claim Application No. OA-III-9/2010 (Old) and Claim Application No. OA-III/GHY/2010/0009 (New) along with following orders, viz., (i) judgment and order dated 01.02.2013, passed by the learned Member (Judicial), (ii) judgment and order dated 01.02.2013, passed by the learned Member (Technical) and (iii) judgment and order dated 28.06.2013, passed by the learned Third Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati. (b). The challenge in MFA 68/2014 is the judgment and order dated 08.05.2014, passed by the learned Member Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in Claim Application No. OA-III-34/2009 (Old) and Claim Application No. OAIII/GHY/2009/00349 (New) along with following orders, viz., (i) judgment and order dated 01.02.2013, passed by the learned Member (Judicial), (ii) judgment and order dated 01.02.2013, passed by the learned Member (Technical) and (iii) judgment and order dated 01.02.2013, passed by the learned Third Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati. (c). The challenge in MFA 72/2014 is the judgment and order dated 08.05.2014, passed by the learned Member Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in Original Application No. OA-III-5/2010 along with following orders, viz., (i) judgment and order dated 29.11.2013, passed by the learned Member (Judicial), (ii) judgment and order dated 01.02.2013, passed by the learned Member (Judicial) and (iii) judgment and order dated 01.02.2013, passed by the learned Member (Technical). 4. The respondents in MFA 67/2014 and MFA 68/2014 are the appellants in MFA 72/2014 (hereinafter referred to as the "claimants"). 4. The respondents in MFA 67/2014 and MFA 68/2014 are the appellants in MFA 72/2014 (hereinafter referred to as the "claimants"). The brief facts as reflected from the claim petition, which are relevant for the purpose of this order are as follows :- (a). The claimants had approached the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as "RCT" for short), seeking realization of their respective claims along with interest on account of it projected entitlement to freight rebate as per the incentives announced by the railway administration. Claims were also made for (i) refund of over charge on account of excessive distance, and (ii) wrongful calculation of terminal charges. (b). The claimants had booked various rakes of coals during the financial year 2007-08. It was claimed that the claimants were all new customers of the Railway for the purpose of transportation of coal and that after they had opted for participating in the freight incentive scheme, as announced by Railway Board Circular No. TCR/1078/2006/04 dated 28.03.2006 under sub-category "All customers including new customers", forming part of clause 4.0 "Long Term Special Incentive Schemes" of the above referred circular. In course of time, the said circular was modified/replaced by another circular of the Railway Board vide No. TCR/1078/2006/04 dated 09.05.2016. (c). All railway rakes by the claimants were booked from various stations to various destination stations. The specific claims of the claimants in all the three cases are bifurcated at paragraph 5 below. Accordingly, on account of this three heads as indicated above i.e. (i) release of entitled incentive, (ii) over charging on account of excessive distance, and (iii) wrongful calculation of terminal charges, the applicants had prayed for recovery of their dues before the concerned Railway authorities and on refusal to accede to their prayer, the claimants had filed their respective claim petitions before the learned RCT. 5. The claims of the claimants in the three cases was as under:- (a). MFA 67/2014- Mahesh Enterprises Pvt. Ltd: This appeal arises out of Claim Application No. OA-III/GHY/2010/0009 (New). In this case, the claimants had made their claims under the following heads- (a) claim on account of freight incentive is Rs. 74,58,636/-, (b) freight over charges on charging of excessive distance is Rs. 11,88,377/- (c) claim on account of originating terminal charges is Rs. 8,88,150/-, (d) destination terminal charges is Rs. 24,920/- Total 93,12,581/-. In this case, the claimants had made their claims under the following heads- (a) claim on account of freight incentive is Rs. 74,58,636/-, (b) freight over charges on charging of excessive distance is Rs. 11,88,377/- (c) claim on account of originating terminal charges is Rs. 8,88,150/-, (d) destination terminal charges is Rs. 24,920/- Total 93,12,581/-. The claimants had prayed for interest @ 12% per annum. (b). MFA 68/2014- Hill View Coals Pvt. Ltd: This appeal arises out of Claim Application No. OA-III/GHY/2009/00349 (New). In this case, the claimants had made their claims under the following heads- (a) claim on account of freight incentive is Rs. 41,72,119/-, (b) freight over charges on charging of excessive distance is Rs. 2,42,613/- (c) claim on account of originating terminal charges is Rs. 7,51,410/- total 51,66,142/-. The claimants had prayed for interest @ 12% per annum. (c). MFA 72/2014- N.L. Enterprises: This appeal arises out of Claim Application No. OA-III- 5/2010. In this case, the claimants had made their claims under the following heads- (a) claim on account of freight incentive is Rs. 25,69,439/- + Rs. 9,42,866/- = Rs. 45,12,305/-, (b) freight over charges on charging of excessive distance is Rs. 2,66,076/-, (c) claim on account of originating terminal charges is Rs. 50,480/- total 48,28,861/-. The claimants had prayed for interest @ 12% per annum. Submissions made on behalf of the Railway authorities: 6. The learned standing counsel for the railways by referring to the relevant circular for Freight Incentive Schemes has submitted that insofar as clause 4.0 of the said Scheme is concerned, the Railway Board by Corrigendum dated 19.05.2006, substituted the existing clause 4.0 with a new Clause 4.0. It is submitted that the "Benchmark" is defined in clause 2.3 of the said scheme could be set up on a (i) monthly basis, (ii) annual basis, or (iii) on the basis of seasonal busy and lean, as may be relating to a particular scheme. The said circular defines "busy season" for the purpose of freight business to be for a period from 1st November to 30th June and "lean season" for the purpose of freight business is from 1st July to 31st October. Clause 2.17 of the said Circular defines "freight discounting" as an up-front discount on tariff rate at the time of booking of the traffic terminal. Clause 2.17 of the said Circular defines "freight discounting" as an up-front discount on tariff rate at the time of booking of the traffic terminal. Clause 2.19 defines the "freight rebate" to be a fresh concession granted by way of refund based on fulfillment of certain agreed performance parameters over a period of time. It is submitted that goods traffic is booked at the terminal at normal tariff rate and refund by way of rebate is paid in lump sum. Clause 2.22 defines "incremental earning" to be a freight earning increase from loading of incremental traffic. Clause 2.36 refers to the four "Volume Growth Incentive Schemes", being (a) Incentive Scheme for Incremental Traffic, (b) Loyalty Scheme, (c) Incentive Scheme for Traditional Empty Flow Direction, and (d) Long Term Special Incentive Scheme. It is submitted that as per clause 3.0, the processing procedure has been prescribed. By referring to sub-clause 8, 9 and 11, it is submitted that the "freight concession" was liable to be granted by means of discounted freight rates and that it was provided that the authorization or regret letter relating to the proposal submitted by the customers must be submitted to the customer and the goods supervisor of the concerned terminal not later than 15 days after receipt of the proposal from the customer and that the commercial staff at the concerned terminal was required to issue a message to the concerned (Senior) Divisional Manager and Chief/Deputy Accounts Officer (Traffic Account) as soon as the customer achieves the benchmark, advising start of grant of discounted freight. It is submitted that it was a condition precedent under Clause 3.11 that only when prescribed benchmark target is achieved, the benefit of freight rate discount would accrue. 7. By referring to the Corrigendum dated 19.05.2006, issued in respect of Clause 4, it is submitted that a condition precedent was prescribed therein, which warranted that concession would be granted if circumstance so warrant with the intention of sustaining as well as increasing the rail share in the total traffic of a customer. In this regard, it is submitted that the railways would only part with concession if there was an increase in the rail share of the total traffic of the customer. In this regard, it is submitted that the railways would only part with concession if there was an increase in the rail share of the total traffic of the customer. Referring to the notes contained at clause-D of the said circular, it is submitted that the notes also prescribed for a "benchmark" and therefore, as per example given, if the traffic achieves a particular target, no discount is payable and once such "benchmark" level is crossed, only then the customer would be entitled to the "freight rate" discount for each additional metric ton, which would commence from the next rail rake onwards. Referring to one of the various railway receipts available in the paper book, it is submitted that the column for "freight" is at box No. 15, and that the railway receipts reflected various other charges, and the total freight is mentioned in box No. 39. It is projected that a customer is entitled to rebate on the "freight rate" only. However, the claimants had claimed freight rebate on the total "freight charges" mentioned in box No. 39. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned RCT had erred in law and on facts by allowing such rebate, not limited to the "freight rate" mentioned in box No. 15, but granted the benefit of "freight rebate" on the total "freight charges", which included the "freight charges" and also various other charges mentioned in the railway receipts. 8. It is submitted that the railway circular had referred to a discount at the rate of 10% on the traffic volume in lean season period from 1st July to 31st October. However, the said circular prescribed rebate at the rate of 5% in respect of peak season commencing from 1st November to 30th June. However, instead of quantifying the claim on the basis of the said "lean season" and "peak season", the claimants had made their claim on the basis of financial year from April to March which has led to incorrect calculation of the eligible freight rebate. 9. The learned standing counsel for the Railways has submitted that the circular for rebate had envisaged the scheme for a total period three years in aggregate. It is submitted that the claimants in all the three cases had made their claim in respect of one financial year. 9. The learned standing counsel for the Railways has submitted that the circular for rebate had envisaged the scheme for a total period three years in aggregate. It is submitted that the claimants in all the three cases had made their claim in respect of one financial year. On the refusal of the railways to accede to their respective claims in respect of the first financial year, all the three applicants had preferred their respective claims before the learned RCT. The learned RCT allowed the claim petitions filed by the claimants in respect of the first financial year. The Railway being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned RCT, the Railways preferred appeals before this Court in respect of the claims arising for the first financial year of the commencing of the scheme. The details of those orders are given below:- (a). In respect of the claimants in MFA 67/2014: This Court by an order dated 09.08.2011, passed in the MFA 45/2011, dismissed the appeal preferred by the railway and upheld the judgment and order passed by the learned RCT. (b). In respect of claimants in MFA 68/2014: This Court by an order dated 15.06.2011, passed in MFA 31/2011, dismissed the appeal preferred by the railway and upheld the judgment and order passed by the learned RCT. (c). In respect of claimants in MFA 72/2014: This Court by order dated 25.05.2011, passed in MFA 34/2011, dismissed the appeal preferred by the railway and upheld the judgment and order passed by the learned RCT. 10. The railways had preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against above referred orders of this Court. The learned Counsel for the claimants has produced a copy of the order dated 04.12.2012, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CC 20744/2012 [in SLP (Civil) ____/2012], by which though the delay in filing of SLP was condoned, but the said appeal was dismissed. Therefore, the judgment and orders passed by the learned RCT in respect of the claims made by the claimants herein for the first financial year had attained finality. 11. The learned Standing Counsel for the railways has submitted that in the said cases, which is hereinafter referred to as the first round of litigation, the Railways had not taken up the following pleas:- (a). 11. The learned Standing Counsel for the railways has submitted that in the said cases, which is hereinafter referred to as the first round of litigation, the Railways had not taken up the following pleas:- (a). There was error in the calculation or the computation of the eligible claim of the claimants, inasmuch as the claimants were entitled to only the rebate in "freight rate" and not on any "other charges" which are included in the total freight rate; and (b). The computation of eligible claims ought to have been made season wise with due regard to traffic in the "lean season" and the "busy season", and the claimants could not have made any claim on the basis of a financial year, which according to the railways, would lead to inevitable error in computation; and (c). The commencement of the rebate would be from the loading made on and from the next rake after fulfillment of the "benchmark" as mentioned in the sub-clause-B of the Explanatory Notes of the concerned incentive circular. 12. In this regard, it has submitted that in the first round of litigation, these issues having not been raised, had remain undecided and therefore, the judgment passed in the first round of litigation, cannot be construed as a res-judicata for the Railways to raise the said issues in respect of an independent claim for one part of the period of the currency of the said incentive circular, being the claim made by the same claimants for the second financial year of the three year period of such scheme. In this regard, the learned standing counsel for the Railway has referred to the issues framed by the learned Claims Tribunal in the first round of litigation and it is stated that no issues have been framed for examining the calculation of the claim. 13. In addition to his oral submissions, the learned standing counsel for the Railways has also submitted a written argument, and has referred to the following case citations, (i) Shri Mandi Sita Ramji v. Governor of Delhi & Ors., AIR 1974 SC 1868 , (ii) Hukam Chand Shyam Lal v. Union of Indian & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 789 , (iii), Mahat Dhangir & Anr. v. Shri Madan Mohan & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 54 , (iv) Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur, AIR 1989 SC 38 , (v) Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi & anr., AIR 2000 SC 43 , (vi) Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. & ors., AIR 2003 SC 511 , (vii) M.T. Khan & ors. v. Govt. of A.P. & ors., AIR 2004 SC 2934 , (viii) Union of India v. Braj Nandan Singh, AIR 2005 SC 4403 , (ix) Sarup Singh & anr. v. Union of India & anr., AIR 2011 SC 514 . 14. The learned standing counsel for the Railways has further submitted that if the claimants are placing their reliance on the first appellate judgment passed by this Court in the first round of litigation, then as per said order, this Court had proceeded on the premise that the claimants were seeking refund under the "Incentive Scheme for Incremental Traffic". The said scheme prescribed for a "benchmark" and therefore, the "benchmark" was a condition precedent before claiming any rebate on the freight charges. 15. Per-contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that the present appeal was not at all maintainable because of the fact that the issues which have been raised herein had all been taken up in the first round of litigation. Thus, after the appeals filed by the Railways had been dismissed with respect to the claims made for the first financial year out of the three year scheme, the issues raised in this appeals are directly and substantially in issue in the first round of litigation between the same parties. Hence, the present set of appeals by the Railways is barred by the principles of resjudicata and/or under the principles of constructive res-judicata. 16. It is further submitted that the entire premise of on which the submissions have been made by the learned standing counsel for the Railway was on a incorrect footing. By referring to the provisions of Section 2(17) and Section 2(35) of the Railways Act, 1989 it is submitted that the words "freight" and "rate" carried two different meanings and definitions. While Section 2(17) defines "freight", Section 2(35) the word "rate". By referring to the provisions of Section 2(17) and Section 2(35) of the Railways Act, 1989 it is submitted that the words "freight" and "rate" carried two different meanings and definitions. While Section 2(17) defines "freight", Section 2(35) the word "rate". It is submitted that when these two differently defined words are joined together to read as "freight rate", the purport and meaning of both the definitions prescribed under Section 2(17) and Section 2(35) is required to be read in consonance and no new meaning can be imported. Hence, by the combined definition of the word "freight rate", the learned Tribunal had committed no infirmity in allowing the rebate under box No. 39 of railway receipt it is an aggregate of the applicable "freight rate" as well as all "other charges". For the better understating of the said submissions, the aforesaid definitions are quoted below: (a). "Section 2(17). "Freight" means the charge levied for the carriage of goods including transshipment charges, if any; (b). Section 2(35). "Rate" includes any fare, freight or any other charge for the carriage of any passenger or goods". 17. It is further submitted that although the main thrust of the argument by learned standing counsel for the Railway was on the application of "benchmark", which, according to the learned counsel for the claimants, was totally misconceived. In this regard, it is submitted that in the present cases, the claimants had opted for rebate scheme under "Long Term Special Incentive Schemes", which was applicable under Sub-Clause (ii) for "All other customers including new customers" and that under this category, there was no prescribed benchmark. The learned counsel for the claimants has referred to few other schemes contained in the said Circular, where reference has been made to the existence of "benchmark" for those particular schemes. It is submitted that "benchmarks" were applicable only in relation to the particular incentive schemes. It is submitted that no "benchmark" was envisaged in respect of Clause - 4.0, as modified/substituted by the corrigendum, hence, no "benchmark" could be applied on the claimants, being new customers. It is submitted that "benchmarks" were applicable only in relation to the particular incentive schemes. It is submitted that no "benchmark" was envisaged in respect of Clause - 4.0, as modified/substituted by the corrigendum, hence, no "benchmark" could be applied on the claimants, being new customers. It is also submitted that the explanatory notes at clause- D of the said circular inclusive of sub-clause-(b) under clause-D i.e. the explanatory notes refer to "Volume Growth Incentive Schemes" and that there were many other sub-schemes under the said "Volume Growth Incentive Schemes", but no benchmarks were mentioned in respect of schemes under serial No. 4(c) (which contains 7 schemes) and that in the none of the said schemes there is a clause for setting up a benchmark. Hence, the claimants having opted for claiming incentive as a new customer under clause-4(2) in respect of all other customers including new customers, there being no "benchmark", there was no merit in the submissions made by the learned standing counsel for the Railways. 18. It is further submitted that notwithstanding that the incentive schemes was applicable and/or calculated for a three year period. However, the claimants had opted for making claim as per the financial year to suit their needs. But, there could not be any difficulty in calculating the rebate in terms of the Railway Board Circular because the date of loading railway rakes were recorded and, as such, rebates was easily worked out on "lean season" and "busy scheme" basis. It is submitted that no document has been brought on record to show that the claimants did not adhere to 'season' basis calculation while making their claim. It is submitted that the claimants had made their respective claims in terms of the circular by claiming rebate at the rate of 10% for the "lean season" and that for all traffic during "peak season", the rebates were claimed at the rate of 5%. It is submitted that the claimants had made their respective claims in terms of the circular by claiming rebate at the rate of 10% for the "lean season" and that for all traffic during "peak season", the rebates were claimed at the rate of 5%. It is further submitted the scheme was open for three year term, as such, no wrong was committed to claim rebate as per financial year basis and even otherwise, it was still open to the applicant to submit a consolidated claim for three years and in such event, it could not be open to the Railways to frustrate such claim on the account that the claims were not made season wise because there was no requirement to make claim only on season-wise basis. Hence, it is for their own convenience that the claimants had preferred to make a claim financial year wise. By further referring to the previous orders passed by this Court in MFA 45/2011 and other connected appeals referred above, it is submitted that this Court by referring to various aspects of the incentive scheme, had held that the learned RCT had the jurisdiction to entertain claims in respect of refund of freight rate and rejected the plea of the Railways. Moreover, this court had accepted that the "Long Term Special Incentive Scheme" as contemplated under the Circular dated 28.03.2006, extended to all terminals with the exception of coal as raw materials to steels plant and but with the rider that coal from N.F. Railway in covered wagons stands returned within the scope of the booking thereof, and the entitlement of the claimants to the benefit under the said scheme was not doubted. It is also submitted that this Court had upheld the computation made by the learned Tribunal to quantify the respective claims by the claimants as their entitlement under scheme and thereupon, dismissed the appeals by the appellants, as such, it was not open to the learned Standing Counsel for the railways to contend that the methodology of computation of the claim for rebate was not raised in the first round of litigation. Hence, the issue raised in the present appeal are barred by principles of res-judicata and or constructive res-judicata because the said appellate order of this Court had attained finality. 19. Hence, the issue raised in the present appeal are barred by principles of res-judicata and or constructive res-judicata because the said appellate order of this Court had attained finality. 19. In respect of the claims under MFA 72/2014, it is submitted that admittedly the claimant was a "new customer", which means that prior to the availing of the transportation of freight through Railway, the claimants had not given any business of freight to the Railways. Therefore, after registration under scheme, even if one rake was transported by the claimants, it would mean an increase in the freight traffic by the claimants. In this case also, since the applicability of the incentive was for a period of three years, there was no requirement that for every "financial year" or every "season" there should be any proportionate increment in the rail traffic by the claimants because performance in three year term was envisaged in the said incentive circular. Therefore, in a given case, merely because 16 rakes were booked in the first year by the claimant, the booking of 8 rakes in the second year could not mean that there was any decrease in traffic volume by the claimants. Moreover, as no year-wise or "season-wise" "benchmark" was provided in the Circular, every additional railway rake transported by the claimants was an increase in traffic by the claimants. It is further submitted that none of the cases cited by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants were applicable in the present fact situation. 20. Having considered the rival submission made by the learned counsel for both sides, it would be worth mentioning at the outset that in the present set of litigation, there was a difference in opinion by the Division Bench of the learned RCT constituting of the learned Member (Technical) and the learned Member (Judicial), both of whom had passed separate orders. While the order passed by the learned Member (Technical) was in favour of the claimants, the order passed by the learned Member (Judicial) was in favour of the Railways. Therefore, the matter was placed before a Bench of the learned Third Member and the learned Third Member of the RCT had given his verdict in favour of the claimants in MFA 67/2014 and MFA 68/2014. However, insofar as the MFA 72/2014 is concerned, the claim was rejected. Therefore, the matter was placed before a Bench of the learned Third Member and the learned Third Member of the RCT had given his verdict in favour of the claimants in MFA 67/2014 and MFA 68/2014. However, insofar as the MFA 72/2014 is concerned, the claim was rejected. Thus, pursuant to the orders passed by the learned Bench of the Third Member, the matter was placed for drawing up an order to pronounce the majority view and accordingly, against the final order that was drawn up, these present three appeals have been preferred. 21. In the first round of litigation, this Court had upheld the orders passed by the learned RCT in respect of the first set of claims made by the same set of claimants in respect of their respective claims for the first financial year out of the three years' scheme by dismissing the said appeals. Thus, in order to maintain the judicial discipline, this court would have ordinarily dismissed the present appeals on the ground that the issues raised herein were directly and substantially in issue in the first round of litigation between the same parties. However, as the learned standing counsel for the Railway has projected that the issue raised in the present appeal neither raised nor heard by this Court in the previous set of litigations, this Court has proceeded to examine the said submissions made by the learned standing counsel for the Railway. Accordingly, the following points of determination has arisen for a decision in these three appeals - (a). Whether the present set of appeals are hit by the principles of res-judicata and/or constructive res-judicata vis-a-vis the previous judgment and orders by this Court (i) dated 09.08.2011 in MFA 45/2011, (ii) dated 15.06.2011 in MFA 31/2011, and (iii) dated 25.05.2011 in MFA 34/2011? (b). To what relief or reliefs the parties are entitled to? 22. On a perusal of the above referred previous judgment and order of this Court in MFA 45/2011, MFA 31/2011 and MFA 34/2011, save and except inadvertently referring to the claim of the claimants under "Incentive Scheme on Incremental Traffic" in one part of the judgment. However, in the operative part of the same order, this Court had specifically held that the claimants had registered themselves to claim benefits under the scheme of category for "all the customers including new customers". However, in the operative part of the same order, this Court had specifically held that the claimants had registered themselves to claim benefits under the scheme of category for "all the customers including new customers". It is not disputed at the Bar that the claimants had registered themselves to claim benefits under the scheme of category for "all the customers including new customers", as such, the claimants are found to be entitled to benefits under the "Long Term Special Incentive Schemes", which was applicable under Sub-Clause (ii) for "All other customers including new customers". Hence, the railways have not suffered any prejudice by an inadvertent mis-description of scheme in one part of the order, whereas in all other part of the order, the description of correct scheme had been given. Moreover, this Court had also held that the circular dated 28.03.2006 was to remain in force for the period of three years and this Court upon examining the relevant facts had held that the claim for the benefits under the scheme was within the period of validity of the scheme. This Court had also held that "... A plain glance of the computation made by the learned Tribunal to quantify the relief awarded to the respondent would demonstrate that the same had been done consciously by bearing in mind the respondent's entitlement under the scheme in the second category as enumerated hereinabove". 23. A perusal of the orders passed by the learned RCT in the first round of litigation shows that the learned RCT had taken note of the rake wise booking made on different dates. For dealing with the various points raised in trial, the learned RCT had framed as many as three issues of the entitlement to benefit of (i) freight incentive, (ii) freight refund on account of the excessive distance, and (iii) benefit of refund on account of terminal charges. In Claim Application No. OA-III/GHY/2010/0009 (New), the issue No. (ii) is framed as follows - (ii) Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of freight incentives money as claimed within the ambit of Railway Board's Circular dated 28.03.2006, Corrigendum dated 19.05.2006 read with circular dated 13.03.2007? 24. While dealing with the said issue, it was, inter-alia, held that the learned Tribunal could not find anything in the circular which mandated giving of the freight earning of Rs. 24. While dealing with the said issue, it was, inter-alia, held that the learned Tribunal could not find anything in the circular which mandated giving of the freight earning of Rs. 50.00 crore in the previous year to claim the incentive and that the benchmark of Rs. 50.00 crore pertained to old customers alone and it was held that the claimant's case was that he is a new customer. It was held that a "new customer" cannot give earnings in the previous year and, as such, it was held that the insistence of benchmark in previous year will render the provision of the circular otiose in so far as the new customer is concerned. It was also held that the claimant's case could not be rejected on account that there was no incremental right on the quantum of money. Further, it was held that there was no requirement to give a minimum earning of Rs. 50.00 Crore in the previous year. Hence, the learned Tribunal proceeded to calculate the item wise claim and insofar as the freight rebate for "busy season" is concerned, the learned Tribunal computed the rebate at the rate of 5% and the incentive for the "lean season" was computed at the rate of 10%. This demonstrates that the issue raised in this appeal about disputing the correctness of calculation had not been raised for the first time in this appeal, but such issue is found to have been raised by the railways in the previous set of litigation too and the learned RCT had determined the said "fact in issue" relating to computation of benefit under the incentive scheme. 25. The learned standing counsel for the Railway had referred to various citations. The said case citations are broadly categorized under four heads. The first head relates to the power of court under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 33 CPC. The second category is the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra), on the principle that if a power is given to be exercised, it must be done in that manner alone. The third category was the case of M.T. Khan & ors. (supra), which was on the point of interpretation of statute that when the words of the statute are plain, clear and unambiguous, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning. The third category was the case of M.T. Khan & ors. (supra), which was on the point of interpretation of statute that when the words of the statute are plain, clear and unambiguous, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning. Insofar as the ratio laid down in the above cited cases are concerned, this Court has full regards to the said authorities. However, in the opinion of this Court, the ratios of none of the cited cases have any application under the facts of the present appeals. As already discussed above, the issues raised in the present appeal is found to have not only been raised in the first round of litigation, but such issue had also been decided, which had attained finality in a three tier litigation, viz., (i) before the learned RCT, (ii) before this Court, and (iii) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 26. Admittedly both the earlier and the present rounds of litigation arises out of the same Incentive Circular dated 28.03.2006 as modified by the Corrigendum dated 19.05.2006. It is not in dispute that the period of scheme is for three years, and that as per clause 4.0, it is prescribed that the scheme is available throughout the year. The Railways Act, 1989 does not define the word "year". Therefore, when the scheme is admittedly available throughout the year, in the absence of anything to the contrary, no fault can be found if the claimants have chosen to make their claim in respect of one financial year i.e. April to March. For the same reason, no fault can be found by the railways if a particular customer elects to make their claim from January to December as per the English calendar year. If the Railways wanted claims to be made for a particular period only, it would have definitely included such clause and/or restriction in the Incentive Scheme itself. Moreover, in the first year, the claimants had submitted their respective claims on the financial year basis, which was finally decided by the learned RCT. Thus, the Railway would be estopped from raising a plea that claim not made as per season-wise could not be processed, which is not the case in hand because the claims were not rejected on the said ground. Thus, the Railway would be estopped from raising a plea that claim not made as per season-wise could not be processed, which is not the case in hand because the claims were not rejected on the said ground. Thus, the railways proceeded to process the claim made in respect of the second financial year, it is not open for them to take a ground in this appeal that the claim was required to be processed on the "season-wise" basis, when no one is stopping the railways to take into account the freight traffic on "lean season" and "busy season" basis. No materials have been placed before this Court to show that the claim cannot be effectively computed on the basis of "lean season" and "peak season" traffic and it is open for the Railways to reject a particular claim, if it is found that although a particular freight was transported in "busy season" but claim was made by accounting it under "lean season" by the claimants. Therefore, in the absence of any material to the contrary, it is not for this appellate Court to presume that it was not possible for the Railways to make computation of the claim in terms of their own circular. In this age, when modern day computers can carry out far more complex calculations like scientific, algebraic, geometric, astronomical, arithmetical calculations, this Court refuses to accept the oral submissions by the Standing Counsel for the railways that the railways cannot make a simple 'season-wise' calculation. Even in order to raise this plea, it is expected that some responsible officer of the Railways should have sworn and filed an affidavit before the learned RCT to disclose that their accounts department is unable to process claim as envisaged in their own Incentive Circular if such claims were not presented season-wise. 27. Moreover, this Court in the first round of litigation, had adjudicated upon the quantification of the claim and had arrived at a definite finding to the effect that the learned Tribunal had quantified the relief awarded to the claimants therein by consciously bearing in mind that the claimants had registered themselves under the scheme in the second category. 28. 27. Moreover, this Court in the first round of litigation, had adjudicated upon the quantification of the claim and had arrived at a definite finding to the effect that the learned Tribunal had quantified the relief awarded to the claimants therein by consciously bearing in mind that the claimants had registered themselves under the scheme in the second category. 28. In view of the discussions above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the issues which has been raised in the present sets of appeals were directly and substantially in issue and in previous round of litigation i.e. MFA 45/2011, MFA 31/2011, and MFA 34/2011, and the decision on those issues having been attained finality by three tier litigation in the first round, first before the learned RCT, then before this Court in first appeal and thereafter, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by filing SLP, this Court is bound by the ratio laid down in the previous round of litigation i.e. in the MFA 45/2011, MFA 67/2014, MFA 31/2011 and MFA 34/2011. Thus, in respect of MFA 72/2014, this Court cannot arrive at a different finding that one already recorded in respect of one part of the three years' claim. 29. The Circulars and Corrigendum in reference does not define "freight rate" to have interpretation different from the one provided in Section 2(17) read with Section 2(35) of the Railways Act, 1989. As per the Rules of interpretation of statute, the meaning of the words must first be found from the same Act and/or Rules, and in this case the word "freight" and "rate" are squarely defined in Section 2(17) and Section 2(35) of the Railways Act, 1989. Therefore, it is not open for this Court to get the meaning of "freight rate" from any other external source. Therefore, the use of words "freight rate" in the circular would mean an include not only the freight rate as envisaged under Section 2(17) of the Railway Act, 1989, but also all other purpose which is denoted in the definition of "rate" as provided under Section 2(35) of the Act. Therefore, the use of words "freight rate" in the circular would mean an include not only the freight rate as envisaged under Section 2(17) of the Railway Act, 1989, but also all other purpose which is denoted in the definition of "rate" as provided under Section 2(35) of the Act. This Court is inclined to reject the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Railways that the claimant was entitled to claim rebate only on the "freight" component, which is covered by Box No. 15 of the Railway receipt, and not on every component of the "freight charges" which is mentioned in Box No. 39 of the Railway receipts. 30. In the first round of litigation, the claimants have been found entitled to the "freight" rebate on the entire freight component. The said issue has also attained finality. Therefore, this Court has not been persuaded to take a view which is divergent to the previous decision by another coordinate Bench of this Court. 31. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity in respect of the assessment of claim of the claimants as done by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the total "freight charges" contained in box No. 39 of Railway receipt available in the record, as projected by the learned Standing Counsel for the Railways. 32. Nonetheless, the Court has visited the calculation/computation of claim made by the majority view of the learned Tribunal, which is impugned in MFA 67/2014 and MFA 68/2014, and the learned Standing Counsel for the Railways could not demonstrate how the said calculations were incorrect or unacceptable. Hence, as no infirmity is found by this Court, the said computation, as made by the learned Tribunal in RCT cases in respect of judgment impugned in MFA 67/2014 and MFA 68/2014 are hereby upheld. 33. Thus, in view of the discussions above, the first point of determination No. (a) is decided in the affirmative and in favour of the claimants and against the appellants by holding that the present set of appeals are hit by the principles of res-judicata and/or constructive res-judicata vis--vis the previous judgment and orders by this Court (i) dated 09.08.2011 in MFA 45/2011, (ii) dated 15.06.2011 in MFA 31/2011, and (iii) dated 25.05.2011 in MFA 34/2011. 34. In respect of MFA 72/2014, it is seen that the scheme under Clause-4(ii) did not prescribed any "benchmark" for new customers. 34. In respect of MFA 72/2014, it is seen that the scheme under Clause-4(ii) did not prescribed any "benchmark" for new customers. Thus, it was not open for the learned RCT to interpret that merely because in the second year, there was a reduction in the freight traffic by the claimant, that there was no increase in traffic by the claimant. In the opinion of this Court, there was no prescribed "benchmark" in the said Circular as modified by the Corrigendum. Therefore, as the entire period for concession was for three years, there was no mention in the said Circular/Corrigendum that in every (i) financial year; or (ii) calendar year; or (iii) for each season, there should be a corresponding increase in the freight transportation. If such a view is taken, then it would mean that for the next claim, the previous claim period would constitute a "benchmark", which would not benefit a "new customer", who had no previous record of traffic by railways and would correspondingly, frustrate the said Circular/Corrigendum. Moreover, such an interpretation would amount to provide for a "benchmark", although such an interpretation it is not contained in the said relevant circular. It must be borne in mind that the projection made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Railways was that the computation is required to be done "season wise" and not "year wise". Notwithstanding that the said plea has been rejected, but that would show that there could not have been a "benchmark" in respect of the second season, envisaging proportionate increment of freight traffic in every "season". This issue has also found to have been settled by this Court in the previous set of litigation. 35. Under the circumstances, this Court has held in connection with MFA 67/2014 and MFA 68/2014 that the incentive circular does not have a "benchmark". Thus, the same principle has to be followed in the case of MFA 72/2014 also that there is no prescribed "benchmark" in Circular dated 28.03.2006 as modified/substituted by Circular dated 19.05.2006. 35. Under the circumstances, this Court has held in connection with MFA 67/2014 and MFA 68/2014 that the incentive circular does not have a "benchmark". Thus, the same principle has to be followed in the case of MFA 72/2014 also that there is no prescribed "benchmark" in Circular dated 28.03.2006 as modified/substituted by Circular dated 19.05.2006. Therefore, this Court is inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the claimants that for a new customer, the transportation of goods by railway rake, in so far he is concerned, there has been a increase in the traffic of the Railway and correspondingly, when the Railways were not getting any traffic from the said claimant, any traffic from such claimant should also be seen as an increase of traffic on part of the Railway. There being no prescription in the incentive scheme that after a particular period of time in the three years term, there must be a corresponding increase in rail traffic. Thus, the impugned judgment in MFA 72/2014 is not found sustainable. Hence, this Court is inclined to allow the said appeal. 36. Accordingly, the point of determination No. (b) is decided in favour of the claimants and against the Railways. Consequently, the railways, i.e. the appellants in MFA 67/2014 and MFA 68/2014 are not entitled to any reliefs. However, in MFA No. 72/2014, the appellants-claimants are entitled to their appeal as well as their claim before the learned RCT being allowed. 37. In connection with MFA 72/2014, insofar as only the quantification part is concerned, this Court is inclined to remand the matter back to the learned RCT. Consequently, the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati would carry out the calculation/computation/quantification of the eligible claim of the claimant therein. This Court is of the view that the arithmetical calculation be done by the learned RCT, which is the court of first instance. The said learned Tribunal shall carry out the exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. ORDER 38. The findings are summed up in sub-para(a) to (g) below:- (a). It is held that the issues raised in the present appeal is found to be directly and substantially in issue in the previous round of litigation, as elaborately narrated above. ORDER 38. The findings are summed up in sub-para(a) to (g) below:- (a). It is held that the issues raised in the present appeal is found to be directly and substantially in issue in the previous round of litigation, as elaborately narrated above. Thus, such issues/plea raised by the appellant as mentioned in paragraph 11 above, are held to be barred by the principles of res-judicata and/or constructive res-judicata vis-a-vis the previous judgment and orders by this Court (i) dated 09.08.2011 in MFA 45/2011, (ii) dated 15.06.2011 in MFA 31/2011, and (iii) dated 25.05.2011 in MFA 34/2011. (b). The scheme under Clause-4(ii) i.e. "Long Term Special Incentive Schemes" "for all customers including new customers" did not prescribed any "benchmark" for new customers. (c). There was no infirmity in the order by the learned RCT, by computing rebate on "freight charges" contained in box No. 39 of Railway receipt available in the record; and (d). There was no requirement under the Incentive Circulars of the Railway for computation of eligible claims by the claimants as per their choice, without making their claims on the basis of "lean season" and the "busy season", which was not an impediment for the railways to make their assessment on the basis of discount available for the particular period. (e). MFA 72/2014 stands remanded back to the learned RCT, Guwahati, insofar as only the quantification part is concerned. The said learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati shall carry out the exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. (f). As a consequence, the appeals being MFA 67/2014 and MFA 68/2014 stands dismissed and the MFA 72/2014, stands allowed and remanded back in terms of the order as indicated above. (g). The parties are left to bear their own cost. 39. Let the LCR of MFA 67/2014 and MFA 68/2014 be returned forthwith. It is clarified that the LCR of MFA 72/2014 had not been called for by this Court. 40. The appellants-claimants in MFA No. 72/2014, who are duly represented by their learned counsels, are directed to appear before the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati on 19.04.2018, and by producing the certified copy of this order, the parties shall seek further instruction from the said learned Tribunal. 41. 40. The appellants-claimants in MFA No. 72/2014, who are duly represented by their learned counsels, are directed to appear before the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati on 19.04.2018, and by producing the certified copy of this order, the parties shall seek further instruction from the said learned Tribunal. 41. At this stage, the learned standing counsel for the Railways has submitted that notwithstanding that their appeals i.e. MFA 67/2014 and MFA 68/2014 have been dismissed, it is prayed that order passed by the learned RCT, which was impugned in the above referred appeals may not be enforced for period of one month. Although the learned counsel for the claimants have been opposed his prayer, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer by directing that the orders impugned herein in MFA 67/2014 and MFA 68/2014 may not be enforced and/or executed till 19.04.2018.