Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M/s. Sapna Emporium, filed a first appeal against the judgment and order dated 22-09-1995 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bombay in Case No. OC 9300195. The dispute arose from a consignment booked on 08-07-1992 from Bombay Central to Delhi, which was not delivered. The time for delivery expired on 07-01-1993. The appellant sent a notice dated 25-01-1993 and filed a claim on 16-07-1993. The respondent, Union of India represented by General Manager, Western Railways, objected on the ground that the notice was served after expiry of six months from the date of booking, thus invalid under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989. The Tribunal held that no valid notice was served. The appellant argued relying on Jetmull Bhojraj v. Darjeeling Himalayan Railway Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1879, that notice should be liberally construed. The respondent relied on Birla Cement Works v. G.M. Western Railways, (1995) 2 SCC 493, where it was held that Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies only to suits in Civil Courts, not to tribunals. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the notice was served beyond the six-month period and that the Limitation Act does not apply to the Railway Claims Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Railways Act - Notice under Section 106 - Limitation - Notice must be served within six months from date of entrustment of goods - In the present case, consignment booked on 08-07-1992, time expired on 07-01-1993, notice dated 25-01-1993 was served beyond six months - Held that notice was invalid and claim barred by limitation (Paras 2-3). B) Limitation Act - Applicability to Tribunals - Section 17(1)(c) of Limitation Act, 1963 - Railway Claims Tribunal is a creature of statute and not a Civil Court - Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings before the Tribunal - Claim under Section 78-B of Railways Act was disallowed as statutorily barred (Para 3). C) Railways Act - Notice - Liberal Construction - Notice must be liberally construed but must still comply with statutory requirements of time and proper authority - Relying on Jetmull Bhojraj v. Darjeeling Himalayan Railway Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1879, notice must be sufficient but within limitation (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notice served under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 was valid and within the prescribed limitation period, and whether the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to proceedings before the Railway Claims Tribunal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Railway Claims Tribunal's order that the notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 was invalid as it was served beyond the six-month limitation period, and the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to the Tribunal.
Law Points
- Notice under Section 106 of Railways Act
- 1989 must be served within six months from date of entrustment
- Limitation Act
- 1963 does not apply to Railway Claims Tribunal
- Section 17(1)(c) of Limitation Act not applicable to tribunals
