JUDGMENT V.A. Naik, J.
1. This appeal is preferred by the Food Corporation of India (F.C.I.) against the order dated 8-1-1991 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, in Application No. 1155/TAI/RCT/NGP/90 dismissing the application filed by the Corporation on the ground that the claim was not maintainable for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the controversy in question are summarized as under:
F.C.I, had filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Jalgaon, on 15-10-1981 against the appellants for recovery of Rs. 30,125/- due to non-delivery/ short delivery of 241 bags of wheat together with refund of freight of Rs. 6,153/-, which came to be numbered as Special Civil Suit No. 94 of 1981.
3. It is the case of the appellant that the consignment of wheat comprising of 3245 bags was despatched by F.C.I, to the District Manager, F.C.I., Jalgaon. The aforesaid bags were transported in 11 wagons. The wagons were loaded at Butari for delivery to the District Manager, F.C.I, at Jalgaon. The appellant further pleaded that the respondent/ railways had issued invoice No. 1 and R.R. No. C O 10637 dated 9-9-1978 after the consignment was booked. The appellant pleaded that in spite of producing all the relevant documents for obtaining the delivery, the railway authorities short delivered 241 bags of wheat. The appellant further pleaded that these 241 bags of wheat were not delivered at Jalgaon and the non-delivery of the said bags caused a loss to the tune of Rs. 30,125/- to F.C.I. It was then pleaded that a claim was lodged in respect of the aforesaid short delivery on 16-11-1978 and in spite of correspondence between the parties the railways had neglected to discharge their liability in favour of the appellant. The appellant therefore pleaded that the railways were liable to make good the loss of Rs. 30,125/- in view of non-delivery/short delivery of the consignment. It was further pleaded that the Central Railway at Jalgaon had collected the entire freight in respect of 11 wagons covered under the said Railway Receipt at the time of surrendering the Railway Receipt and the freight in respect of the goods which were loaded in those two missing wagons to the tune of Rs. 6,135/- was also paid. The appellant, therefore, pleaded that the respondents were liable to refund the freight amounting to Rs. 6,135/- in respect of short delivered goods which were loaded in those two missing wagons.
4. It was lastly pleaded that the appellant had issued a notice dated 29-8-1981 to the respondents under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act. The appellant, therefore, sought a direction to the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 30,125/- due to nondelivery/short delivery of 241 bags of wheat along with interest at 12% per annum from 17-9-1978 to 19-9-1981 and further till realisation of the whole amount.
5. The defendants filed their written statement and denied the claim of the appellant. They stated that the suit was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code. It was also pleaded by them that the notice dated 29-8-1981 issued under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code read with Section 78-B of the Railways Act was not traceable in their office.
6. While the civil suit was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Jalgaon, the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 was enacted and was brought into force on 8-11-1989. In view of Section 24 of the Act of 1987, the special civil suit which was pending before the Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Jalgaon, came to be transferred to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, and came to be numbered as Appln. No. 1155 of 1990. The appellant tendered oral evidence of one Dhonderam Dhula Garle to substantiate its case for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,125/- along with interest thereon, as claimed in the claim petition.
7. The Railway Claims Tribunal after hearing the parties and after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record rejected the claim of the appellant on a technical ground by holding that the suit was not maintainable. The Tribunal held that the suit filed by the appellant was not maintainable in view of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code. The Tribunal further held that the appellant had proved that the respondents had failed to deliver 241 bags of wheat valued at Rs. 30,125/-. It was also held by the Tribunal that though the appellant has established that there was loss to the Corporation to the extent of Rs. 30,125/-, the appellant was not entitled to recover the said amount as there was non-compliance with the provisions of Section 80, Civil Procedure Code. The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code read with Section 78-B of the Railways Act came to be issued on 29-8-1981 but since the suit came to be filed within a period of two months thereafter, i.e. on 15-10-1981, without waiting for the expiry of statutory notice period of 60 days, there was non-compliance with the provisions of Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
8. Shri C. S. Samudra, learned Counsel, for the appellant submits that the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal on 8-1-1991 is grossly illegal and unjust as the Tribunal clearly overlooked the relevant provisions of the Indian Railways Act, 1987 which showed that the issuance of notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code was not necessary or mandatory for instituting a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. It was then canvassed on behalf of the appellant that a combined reading of Section 13(2) which deals with the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Claims Tribunal; Section 18 which deals with the procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunal and Section 24 of the Act which deals with the transfer of pending cases, clearly shows that it was not necessary for the appellant to issue a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the railways as the proceedings before the Railway Claims Tribunal were treated as an application under Section 24 of the Act and not as a regular suit. It was therefore submitted that the Tribunal committed a gross illegality in rejecting the claim petition filed by the appellant on a technical ground of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
9. It was lastly submitted on behalf of the appellant that the claim of the appellant to the tune of Rs. 30,125/- was already held to be proved by the Tribunal and if it is held by this Court that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application solely on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant would be entitled to a decree of Rs. 30,125/- along with interest thereon.
10. Shri Lambat, on the other hand, submits that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant as the appellant did not wait for a period of two months as provided under Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and instituted the suit within two months from the date of issuance of notice on 29-8-1981. The counsel for the respondent relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bihari Chowdhary v. State of Bihar .
11. To determine and resolve the controversy in question, it is necessary to have a look at the relevant provisions of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Under the aforesaid enactment, the Special Tribunal was constituted for speedy adjudication of the cases relating to substantial liability of the respondent-Railways which resulted in loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non delivery of goods entrusted to the railways. Section 13 of the enactment deals with the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Claims Tribunal and reads as under:
13. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal. -- (1) The Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority, as were exercisable immediately before that day by any Civil Court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act, --
(a) ... (i) compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or nondelivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway; (ii) compensation payable under Section 82-A of the Railways Act or the rule made thereunder; and
Similarly, Section 18 of the Act deals with the procedure and powers of Claims Tribunal. Sub-section (1) of Section 18 clearly stipulates that the Claims Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules, the Claims Tribunal shall have powers to regulate its own procedure including the fixing of places and times of its enquiry. Sub-section (3) of Section 18 however provides that the Claims Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, while trying a suit, in respect of the matters enumerated in Sub-section (3) of Section 18. Lastly, it is also necessary to refer to Section 24 of the Act which deals with the transfer of pending cases. Sub-section (1) of Section 24 stipulates that every suit, claim or other legal proceeding (other than an appeal) pending before any Court, Claims Commissioner or other authority immediately before the appointed day, shall be transferred to the Railway Claims Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1987. Sub-section (2) of Section 24 which throws considerable light on the controversy in question is reproduced as under :
24. Transfer of pending cases. -- (1)...
(2) Where any suit, claim or other legal proceeding stands transferred from any Court, Claims Commissioner or other authority to the Claims Tribunal under Sub-section (1), --
(a) the Court, Claims Commissioner or other authority shall, as soon as may be after such transfer, forward the records of such suit, claim or other legal proceeding to the Claims Tribunal; (b) the Claims Tribunal may, on receipt of such records, proceed to deal with such suit, claim or other legal proceeding, so far as may be, in the same manner as an application, from the stage which was reached before such transfer or from any earlier stage or de novo as the Claims Tribunal may deem fit.
12. Thus, a combined reading of the provisions of Section 13(2), sections 18 and 24 of the Railway Tribunal Act, 1987 clearly leads to the only conclusion that a pending suit which is transferred to the Claims Tribunal under Section 24 has to be treated and tried by the Claims Tribunal as an application and not as a civil suit. It is further clear that the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 and the Rules made thereunder are applicable for inquiring into or determining the claims by the Claims Tribunal under the Act of 1987, in view of Section 13(2) of the Act. Similarly, Sub-section (1) of Section 18 makes it amply clear that the Railway Claims Tribunal would not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and shall have powers to regulate its own procedure. Though Sub-section (3) of Section 18 stipulates that the Claims Tribunal may have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the purpose of discharging its function, it cannot be said that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure would strictly apply to the proceedings pending before the Railway Claims Tribunal. If a transferred suit is to be treated as an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1987, it would not be possible to hold that the provisions of Section 80 could be made applicable while deciding the application pending before the Railway Claims Tribunal. Though the provisions of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure are held to be mandatory and though the same could have been attracted to the facts of the instant case had the special civil suit which was filed by the appellant been decided by the Civil Court, it could not be said that they would still apply after the suit was transferred to the Railway Claims Tribunal. Compliance of provisions of Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code is not necessary before filing an application under Section 16 of the said Railway Claims Tribunal Act. Though compliance with the provisions of Section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act 1890, corresponding to Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 is mandatory and notice to the Railways would be necessary before institution of a claim before the Claims Tribunal under Section 16 of the Act of 1987, it cannot be said that notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is also necessary in such a case. In the instant case, there was compliance with the provisions of Section 78-B of the Railways Act before institution of the proceedings before the Civil Court or Railway Claims Tribunal. Though it could be said that the compliance of provisions of Section 80 was necessary for instituting a civil suit against the Railways in an ordinary civil Court, it cannot be said, especially after perusal of the provisions of sections 13(1), 18 and 24 of the Act of 1987, that a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was mandatory and non-compliance with the provisions of Section 80(1) dealing with the notice period, should result into dismissal or rejection of the claim.
13. The aforesaid conclusion is further fortified by the express provisions of Section 24(2)(b) which stipulate that it would be in the discretion of the Claims Tribunal to proceed with the transferred case from any stage or even de novo as it may deem fit. When the Claims Tribunal has powers under Section 24(2)(b) to enquire in respect of a claim, afresh or de novo after its transfer, it cannot be said that the Claims Tribunal is deciding the civil suit and not as a claim petition filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Thus, looking at the controversy from any angle, it could be said that the Claims Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the claim preferred by the appellant solely on the ground that there was non-compliance with the provisions of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Tribunal should not have rejected the claim application as the provisions of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not applicable to the proceedings transferred to the Claims Tribunal and necessary notice under Section 78-B of the Railways Act 1890 had already been served on the respondents.
14. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel for respondents on the decision , supra, is totally misconceived. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case deals generally with the provisions of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to hold that a suit filed against the Government or a Public Officer cannot be validly instituted until expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to the authorities concerned. The decision further lays down that suit filed before the expiry of the period should be dismissed as not maintainable. There is no doubt about the said proposition but the question involved in the instant case relates to the applicability of provisions of Section 80 to a civil suit transferred to the Claims Tribunal. The aforesaid authority lays down that the provisions of Section 80 are to be strictly followed before a suit is instituted against the Government or against a Public Officer. The word "suit" would mean the "suit" which is filed in an ordinary civil Court and governed by the Code and would not include the proceedings which are filed before the Tribunals or other authorities constituted under special enactments where provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not strictly made applicable. The Claims Tribunal grossly erred in relying on the aforesaid authority for dismissing the claim of the appellant by holding that the suit was not maintainable.
15. Having once held that the Claims Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the claim on the failure to comply with the provisions of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is necessary to consider the claim of the appellant on merits. The Claims Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record came to a conclusion that the railway authorities had delivered only 3004 bags of wheat instead of 3245 to the Jalgaon Depot and had short-delivered 241 bags of wheat. The Tribunal further came to a conclusion that the 241 bags of wheat were valued at Rs. 30,125/-. According to the Tribunal, the appellant had established its claim for Rs. 30,125/- towards short delivery/non-delivery of 241 bags of wheat. While deciding the issue No. 6 relating to the award of interest on the amount payable to the appellant, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to 9% interest per annum on the amount of Rs. 30,125/-from 29-8-1981, i.e. the date of demand till the date of institution of the suit in view of provisions of Section 3 of the Interest Act 1978, if the suit otherwise would have been held to be maintainable. The Tribunal also held that the appellant was entitled to the amount of Rs. 176/- towards notice charges, if the suit had been held to be maintainable. Since this Court is clearly of the view that the claim petition ought not to have been dismissed as not maintainable, it consequently follows that the appellant would be entitled to the amount of Rs. 30,125/- towards non-delivery/short delivery of the lost consignment and also to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 29-8-1981 till the date of institution of the suit, i.e. 15-10-1981. Considering the fact that the interest rates are now dwindling, the appellant would be entitled to interest on the compensation amount only at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realisation of the amount.
16. The appeal, therefore, succeeds. The respondents are directed to pay to the appellant an amount of Rs. 30,125/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 29-8-1981 to 15-10-1981 and further interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 15-10-1981 till the realisation of the said amount. The appellant is also entitled to the notice charges of Rs. 176/-. Appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms. However, in the facts of the case, there would be no order as to costs.