UNION OF INDIA Vs. INDIA CEMENTS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals under Section 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 said 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 Section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, corresponding to Section 106 of the 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 th'at since no claim notice within six months of booking of the consignment was sent to the Railway Authorities, the applications before the Tribunal are liable to be dismissed under Section 106 of the 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, had 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 Section 106 of the Act. It, therefore, held that no separate notice is necessary. The mere fact 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.) IT is contended by the appellant that the Tribunal has failed to take note of the provisions contained in Sections 2(32) and 192 of the Act. A joint survey report which has been signed in a routine manner by the consignee's representative and the surveying officials at the destination station at the time of taking delivery on 6.7.1991 which was endorsed as It is one without prejudice' cannot be construed as a notice under Section 106 of the Act