HANUMAN PRASAD SARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, praying for setting aside the order, dated 19.8.98, passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati in Application No. Misc. 4/97.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal, according to the appellant, may, in brief, be stated as follows: (i) A consignment of 150 bags and 260 packets of rice, was booked, under Invoice No. 38/061267 dated 7.5.93 from Gorakhpur Railway Station to Silchar for being delivered to the appellant, which is a partnership firm at Kalibari Road, Silchar. The consignment got diverted and reached its destination after inordinate delay. The rice having been damaged on transit, the appellant served the respondent with a notice, dated 11.7.93. Under Section 106B of the Railway Act demanding Rs. 11,151.00 as compensation for damage caused to 1593 kgs of rice @ Rs.7.00 per kg. The appellant kept pursuing the matter by sending reminders, the last one having been sent on 9.2.96, but the Railways remained silent. However, after the period of limitation was over, the Railways (i.e. respondent) sent to the appellant a cheque No. F-081488, dated 12.12.96, for Rs.5905.00 vide its letter dated 18.4.96. The appellant received the said cheque under protest vide its letter dated 19.12.96, and informed the respondent accordingly. As the respondent did not pay to the appellant balance unpaid amount, the appellant instituted Application No. 4/97 aforementioned praying for recovery of Rs.5346.00 as balance of compensation amount. (ii) As the claim petition was filed beyond the period of limitation, a prayer under Section 17 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, was made before the learned tribunal seeking admittedly, condonation of delay of about 8 months 13 days in making the claim. The respondents filed its objection resisting the claim of the appellant. Upon hearing both sides, learned tribunal passed an order, on 19.8.98, holding to the effect that no sufficient reason for condonation of delay in filing the claim application could be made out by the appellant. The Application Misc. Case No. 4/97 aforementioned was accordingly dismissed with direction to the parties to bear its own cost. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) I have carefully perused the relevant records including the impugned order. I have heard Mr H.P. Barman, learned cousnel for the appellant, and Mr J. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.