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 9300 of 1996. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim on the ground that no valid notice was served under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989. The facts of the case are that on 04-06-1992, a consignment was booked from Bombay Central to Delhi. The consignment was not delivered, and the time for delivery expired on 03-01-1993. The appellant sent a notice dated 25-01-1993, and the claim was filed on 16-07-1993. The respondent objected to the notice on the ground that it was sent and served after the expiry of six months from the date of booking, and therefore, was not valid within the meaning of Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989. The respondent argued that the notice should have been served upon the Zonal Manager and not the General Manager, and that it was beyond the statutory limitation period. The appellant argued that the notice should be liberally construed, relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Jetmull Bhojraj v. Darjeeling Himalayan Railway Co. Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1879. The respondent relied on Birla Cement Works v. G.M. Western Railways and another, (1995) 2 SCC 493, where it was held that the claim for refund of excess freight was barred by limitation and that Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply only to a suit or an application in a civil suit, not to the Railway Claims Tribunal. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 and held that the notice must be liberally construed. The court noted that the time for delivery expired on 03-01-1993, and the notice was sent on 25-01-1993, which was within a reasonable time. The court also held that the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to the Railway Claims Tribunal as it is a creature of statute. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on merits.
Headnote
A) Railways Act, 1989 - Section 106 - Notice of Claim - Liberal Construction - The notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 must be liberally construed and substantial compliance is sufficient. The court held that the notice dated 25-01-1993, though served after expiry of six months from booking, was valid as the time for delivery had expired on 03-01-1993 and the claim was filed on 16-07-1993. (Paras 2-4) B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 17(1)(c) - Applicability to Railway Claims Tribunal - The Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to proceedings before the Railway Claims Tribunal as it is a creature of statute and not a civil court. The claim under Section 78-B of the Railways Act, 1989 is governed by the special limitation under Section 106 of the Act. (Para 3) C) Railways Act, 1989 - Section 78-B - Claim for Refund - The claim for refund of excess freight or compensation for non-delivery is barred if notice under Section 106 is not served within six months from the date of entrustment. However, the notice must be liberally construed and the period of limitation runs from the date of entrustment, not from the date of delivery. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notice served under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 was valid and within the prescribed period of six months from the date of entrustment of goods
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and order dated 22-09-1995 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bombay in Case No. OC 9300 of 1996 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Notice under Section 106 of Railways Act
- 1989 must be liberally construed
- Limitation Act
- 1963 does not apply to Railway Claims Tribunal
- Section 17(1)(c) of Limitation Act
- 1963 applies only to suits or applications in civil courts
