UNION OF INDIA Vs. INDIA CEMENT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals under S.23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 have been preferred by the Union of India owning Southern Railway, represented by its General Manager against the order dated 16-1-1995 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No.469 of 1994, and other similar cases. By the impugned order, the Tribunal rejected the contention of the appellant on the question of bar of the claim made by the respondent herein on the ground of limitation. Since common questions of law in all the appeals have been raised, this common judgment is being passed in all the cases.

(2.) The respondent herein filed applications before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, claiming various sums of money as compensation towards damages Mid to have been caused to the consignment of cement sent through Railway from Thalaiyuthu to Kottayam on 27-6-1991. The respondent stated that notice of claim of compensation under S.78-B of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, corresponding to S.106 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 was sent to the railway authorities on 6-1-1992. The appellant, however, states that it was received on 24-1-1992. it was contended by the appellant that since no claim notice within six months of the booking of the consignment was sent to the Railway authorities, the applications before the Tribunal are liable to be dismissed under S.106 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 (for short, the Act), The Railway Claims Tribunal framed an issue regarding the maintainability of the claim and heard it as a preliminary issue. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, held that the Joint Survey Report of the damaged cement by the consignee and the railway official at the Kottayam Railway Station at the time of taking delivery of the goods on 6-7-1991 is sufficient compliance of requirement of the claim notice as envisaged in S.106 of the Act. It therefore held that no separate notice is necessary. The mere act that the formal claim notice was sent subsequently beyond six months from the date of booking the goods will not be a bar to the maintainability of the proceeding on the ground of limitation.

(3.) The issue No.1, which reads as "Is the claim preferred by the applicant time barred - was answered by holding that the same is not time barred. The appellant challenges the above finding,