Delhi High Court
M/S. Delhi Bhatta Welfare ... vs Union Of India on 25 March, 2010
Author: Rekha Sharma
UNREPORTABLE
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
FAO No.374/1996
Date of Decision: March 25, 2010
M/S. DELHI BHATTA WELFARE ASSOCIATION
..... Appellant
Through Mr. M.L.Bhargava, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Gyan Mitra, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA
1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the „Digest‟? No
REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
The appellant had filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of
Rs.47,090/- against the respondent, i.e. the Union of India through
General Manager, Northern Railways. The suit was filed on
October 19, 1987 in the Court of the District Judge. It was later
transferred to the Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as
the Tribunal). The Tribunal by order dated June 05, 1996 held that
the recovery made by the respondent was illegal and consequently
further held that the respondent was liable to refund the same to the
appellant subject to its finding on issue No.4 which issue was as
under:-
"4. Whether the claim is time barred?"
The finding on the aforesaid issue No.4 went against the
appellant. The Tribunal held the claim of the appellant to be barred
by the law of limitation. The result was that the appellant, even
though it succeeded on merits, failed to get the refund of the amount
claimed. Feeling aggrieved by the order so passed, the present
appeal was preferred way-back in the year 1996. The facts are not in
dispute and they are as under:-
The appellant booked coal consignments from Singrauli to
Nangloi under Invoices No.1 to 10 (RR Nos.011382 to 011391) dated
February 16, 1982. As per the relevant rules, the consignments had
to be booked by the Railways via the shortest route at the cheapest
rate. The appellant had booked the consignments via Chopan-Chunar
which was the shortest route and the freight charges were also
invoiced accordingly by the forwarding station. However, on arrival
of the consignments at the destination station, an excess freight of
Rs.47,090/- was demanded from the appellant by the Railways on the
ground that the consignment was booked and carried via a longer
route. The appellant did pay the extra freight of Rs.47,090/-, but
under protest. The payment was made in February, 1982.
It is not disputed that after making the payment, the appellant
was engaged in correspondence with the respondent resulting in a
letter dated August 23, 1982 from the latter informing the former that
the matter was under reference with the SM/NNO and the appellant
would be addressed again shortly. The only other letter that the
appellant received from the respondent was of January 16, 1986
informing the appellant that no refund was admissible and that the
freight charges were correctly recovered. According to the appellant,
it is this letter of January 16, 1986 which gave rise to the cause of
action to file the suit. Accordingly, the same was filed on
October 19, 1987 in the Court of the District Judge which, as noticed
above, was subsequently transferred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal
vide the impugned order dated June 05, 1996 has held that it is
Article 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which is applicable to the facts
of the case and that the suit having not been filed within three years
in terms of the said Article, the same was barred by time.
Before I proceed further, let me reproduce Article 24 of the
Limitation Act, 1963. It runs as under:-
Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which
period begins to run
For money payable Three years When the money is
by the defendant to received.
the plaintiff
for money received
by the defendant,
for the plaintiff‟s use
The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the order of
the Tribunal on the ground that it is not Article 24 of the Limitation
Act, 1963 which is attracted to the facts of the present case, but
Article 113 of the Act. According to the counsel, the facts of the
present case are such that no other Article of the Limitation Act fits
the bill except Article 113 and that what is to be seen is whether the
suit is within limitation in terms of the said Article. Insofar as
Article 113 is concerned, it provides that, "in a suit for which no
period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule, the period
of limitation will be three years from the date when the right to sue
accrues."
In view of the aforesaid, the question that arises for
consideration is whether it is Article 24 or Article 113 of the
Limitation Act which is applicable to the facts of the present case.
What is of significance is that after the sum of Rs.47,090/- was
paid by the appellant to the respondent, the parties were in
correspondence with each other. The respondent sent a letter dated
August 23, 1982 to the appellant informing it that the matter was
under reference with the SM/NNO and the appellant would be
addressed again shortly. It was only on January 16, 1986 that the
appellant was finally told that no refund was admissible. Hence, it is
the letter of January 16, 1986 which gave rise to the cause of action
and if the period of limitation is computed from the said date, the suit
which was initially filed in the court of the District Judge on
October 19, 1987 was within limitation. The finding of the Tribunal
that it is Article 24 of the Limitation Act which was applicable is not
warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
For what has been noticed above, I set-aside the order of the
Railway Claims Tribunal and hold the appellant entitled to the sum of
Rs.47,090/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the
filing of the suit till realization. As the claim pertains to the
year 1982, the Railway is directed to make the payment within five
months from today, failing which the amount shall carry interest
@ 9% instead of 6%.
REKHA SHARMA, J.
MARCH 25, 2010
ka
