Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi)
2004 Latest Caselaw 1344 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. FAO 525/2003 is directed against the order dated 3.6.2003 of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act in Miscellaneous Application No. 30/2002 whereby the Tribunal vide its order has dismissed the application of the appellant under Section 17(2) of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act 1987.

2. The brief facts of this case as noted by the Tribunal are as under:-

The applicant is a Public Undertaking and has filed an application dated 14.06.2002 before this Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 1,13,854/- on account of non delivery of Wagon No. CR-47267 booked from IOC siding Haldia to Shakurbasti, Delhi vide Railway Receipt No. 089371 dated 4/5 Feb. 1996.

The following material dates emerge from application.

   A.       Date on which the goods in question 
           were entrusted to the railways for carriage. 4/5.02.1996

  B.       Non delivery certificate received on          18.06.1996

  C.       Filing of claim notice by applicant 
           before the railways                           26.07.1996

  D.       Repudiation of the claim by CCO office         10.09.96

  E.       Application for claim filed before RCT         14.6.2002


 

Section 17(1)(a) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 prescribed the limitation as follows:

''The Claims Tribunal shall not admit an application for any claim...........Unless the application is made within three years from the date on which the goods in question were entrusted to the railway administration for carriage by railways.''

As such the claim should have been filed not later than 04.02.1999. Thus there is a delay of more than 3 years and 4 months in filing the claim petition by the applicant before the Railway Claims Tribunal.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that delay in filing of the claim ought to have been condoned in view of the internal correspondence between the parties and further on account of admission made by the railways. The learned Tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and Anr., has disallowed this contention.

4. With the assistance of learned counsel have gone through the material on record. Merely, because the parties choose to keep writing to each other will not mean that the limitation under the Act gets extended. The reasoning of the Tribunal is sound and cannot be faulted with. I find no ground to interfere. FAO 525/2003 is dismissed.