K K PUSHPAKARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants filed an application, O.A.No.30 of 1999, before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench claiming a compensation of Rs.4,000/- for the demise of their son in a train accident, under section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 read with section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. The application was dismissed for default as appellants were absent on one day of the posting dates. They filed an application for setting aside the order dismissing the original application for default. Rule 18 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 reads as follows;

(2.) In Birla Cement's case (supra), relied on by the Tribunal, a claim was filed to refund the excess freight paid under Section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 corresponding to Section 108 of the Railways Act, 1986. Section 78-B of the Act provides that a person shall not be entitled to refund to overcharge or excess payment in respect of animals or goods carried by Railways unless his claim to the refund has been preferred in writing by him or on his behalf to the Railways Administration to which the animals or goods were delivered to be carried by Railway etc, within six months from the date of the delivery of the animals or goods for carriage by Railway. But, application was filed after six months. Section 78-B prescribes only time limit for filing an application before the Railway Administration and not before the court, Tribunal or quasi judicial authority. Under Section 13(1)(b) of the Railways Claims tribunal Act, 1987 if the amount is not paid by the Railway Administration, claim can be filed before the Tribunal. Section 13(1-A) is regarding claims for compensation payable by the railway administration under Section 124-A of the Railways act, 1989. Section 17 provides for time of limitation for filing application before the Tribunal and Section 17(1)(c) provides that claim under Section 13(1)(b) can be filed within three years from the date on which the fare or freight is paid to the railway administration. Sub section (2) of section 17 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 provides that Tribunal has got power to condone the delay for sufficient cause. Section 17 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, 1987 reads as follows:

(3.) In Mukri Gopalan v. C.P.Aboobacker (AIR 1995 SC 2272 = 1995(2) KLT 205) it was held by the Supreme Court that appellate authority constituted under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act has got power to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation act as appellate authority is not a persona designata. Even though it is not a civil court, it has got all the powers of the civil court and in functioning as a court. It is also observed that there may be situations wherein even courts constituted under special or local law which are governed by Civil procedure Code may have prescribed period of limitation for application under such acts and in the absence of any specific exclusions, in such cases also Limitation Act will apply. It was held as follows: