Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. vs The Railway Administration and Others

Bela M. Trivedi, J.—Heard the learned senior counsel Mr. J.K. Singhi, for the appellant. Both the appeals being interconnected with each other were heard together and the common order is being passed. The SBCMA being No. 1024/96 arises out of the impugned order dated 2.8.95 passed by the Railways Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal) in OA-I-260/94 and the SBCMA being No. 675/96 arises out of the order dated 7.3.96 passed by the Tribunal in the Applications No. CM/7/96 and CM/8/96.

The short facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the consignment of boilers spares components booked by the appellants vide Railway Receipt No. 234130 dated 17.7.86 to be carried from Tiruchinapally to Kota, reached at the destination on 1.10.86. At the request of the appellant, the Railway administration had waived the demurrage and wharfage accrued on the consignment due to the appellants failure to take the delivery. As per the case of the appellant, on the open delivery of the consignment, certain shortage was detected for which the Railway Administration had also issued the certificate. The appellant therefore sent a claim notice to the respondents on 13.1.87, which claim was repudiated by the respondents vide the letter dated 5.6.90. The appellant thereafter filed the claim application being No. OA-I-260/94 before the Tribunal on 21.3.94. Pending the said claim application, the appellant filed an application on 25.7.94 seeking condonation of delay, which had occurred in filing the claim application. The respondents resisted the said claim application as well as the application for condonation of delay by filing their reply. It appears that since the counsel appearing for the appellant did not appear before the Tribunal, the Tribunal passed the order on 2.8.95 dismissing the application for condonation of delay. The appellant has preferred the SBCMA being No. 1024/96 against the said order.

It also appears that before filing the SBCMA being No. 1024/96, the appellant had filed an application being No. CM/7/96 seeking restoration of the claim application No. OA-I-260/96 and also filed application being No. CM/8/96 seeking condonation of delay occurred in filing the restoration application. The Tribunal vide the order dated 7.3.96 dismissed both the said applications, against which the SBCMA being No. 675/96 was filed by the appellant. Pending both the appeals, the name of the appellant having been changed from Rajasthan State Electricity Board to Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., the appellant has filed the amended cause-title in both the appeals with the permission of the court.

It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel Mr. J.K. Singhi for the appellant in both the cases that the Tribunal should have condoned the delay occurred in filing the claim application taking liberal view in the matter. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in case of State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and others, , the learned counsel submitted that the appellant company being Public Sector Undertaking, it cannot be put on the same footing as an individual and that the expression "sufficient cause" should be considered with pragmatism in justice oriented approach rather than "technical detection".

None is present for the respondents though the matter is called out twice.

In the instant case, it appears that there is gross negligence on the part of the officers and the counsels appearing for the appellant, right from the beginning of the filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal till this date. As rightly observed by the Tribunal in the impugned order dated 2.8.95, though the claim of the applicant was repudiated by the respondents vide letter dated 5.6.90, the appellant had preferred the claim application before the Tribunal on 21.3.94, and that too without showing any sufficient cause for condonation of such a gross delay. The Tribunal had vide the detailed order dismissed the application for condonation of delay on 2.8.95, however instead of challenging the said order before the higher forum, the appellant filed the applications seeking restoration of the claim petition and seeking condonation of delay. The said applications also were dismissed by the Tribunal by passing the detailed order on 7.3.96. It appears that though the said order was challenged before this court by way of SBCMA No. 675/96, and the order dated 2.8.95 was challenged by way of SBCMkA No. 1024/96, the said appeals were not seriously persuaded by the appellant, as a result thereof both the appeals remained pending at the admission stage from 1996 till this date i.e. September, 2013. The learned counsel Mr. Singhi for the appellant has failed to point out as to how the orders passed by the Tribunal were erroneous and what were the sufficient causes for not preferring the claim petition within the prescribed time limit and also for not pursuing the matters vigilantly for so many years. There cannot be any disagreement with the ratio of decision of Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, however the same has no application to the gross facts of the present case. The learned counsel Mr. J.K. Singhi for the appellant having failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders dated 2.8.95 and 7.3.96 passed by the Tribunal, the court does not find any substance in the appeals preferred by the appellant. In that view of the matter, both the appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.