AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.D. Shah, J.—This appeal is filed u/s 22 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act against the order dated 28.2.1992 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in Miscellaneous Application No. 41 of 1991 whereby the application for condonation of delay and main claim petition were dismissed.
The short facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant booked 10 box wagons with B/S Urea from KRIBHCO siding Kosad to Dhuri station on 15/16-4-1987 against RR No. 581358 but the respondent-Railway delivered only 9 wagons on 22.4.1987 while one wagon No. CR-151224 containing 1112 bags of Urea has not been delivered. The appellant filed the claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal for recovery of Rs.1,40,985/- as the value of the consignment not delivered with interest and full cost from the Railway authority along with the delay condonation application and prayed to allow the same. The respondent-Railway authorities filed written statement to the said claim petition and prayed to dismiss the application of the appellant.
The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the main claim petition against which this appeal is filed.
Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the record and proceedings and judgment of the Tribunal.
Learned advocate Mr. Prabhav Mehta appearing for the appellant submitted that by letter dated 14.3.1990, the railway administration accepted the liability of one wagon which was not delivered to the appellant subject to inquiry and tracing of the wagon and the limitation period starts from the date of this letter. He also submitted that this letter amounts to acknowledgment of debt or liability to pay and so limitation should be computed u/s 18 of the Limitation Act which provides for fresh initiation of limitation period from the date of acceptance of liability. He further submitted that the Railways Tribunal has failed to consider this legal aspect and came to a wrong finding that Section 10 of the Limitation Act is applicable. Hence, he prayed to allow this appeal.
As against this, Mr.Bipin Mehta appearing for the respondent submitted that the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal is legal and proper and not required to be interfered with and therefore this appeal deserves to be dismissed.
The learned Tribunal held that this application is governed by the Indian Limitation Act as the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 came into force w.e.f. 8.11.1989. It is found from the record that correspondence took place between the appellant and the respondent and the respondent-railway administration, by its letter dated 14.3.1990 intimated the appellant that "...Liability is hereby accepted, subject to inquiry and tracing of wagon...". It is pertinent to note that the natural conduct of the appellant would be to wait for the reply from the railway authorities as the railway authorities informed the appellant that liability is accepted subject to inquiry and tracing of wagon.
Without entering into the technical aspect that whether the letter dated 14.3.1990 should be treated as acknowledgment note or not and whether Section 18 of the Limitation Act is attracted or not, in opinion of this Court, considering the averments made in the delay condonation application filed by the appellant before the Tribunal, sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay. It is cardinal principle of law that matter should not be thrown out on technical grounds but it should be decided on merits and therefore I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be allowed.
The appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal in Miscellaneous Application No. 41 of 1991 on 28.2.1992 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Railway Claims Tribunal is hereby directed to register the main claim petition and decide the same on its own merits. Office is directed to send the record to the Tribunal forthwith.