Section 5 Of Limitation Act Applicable To Proceedings Under Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to proceedings under the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Railway Claim Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989. The bench comprising of Justice Ajay Bhanot was adjudicating an appeal arising from a claim application filed before the Railway Claim Tribunal, which was dismissed in default...
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to proceedings under the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Railway Claim Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989.
The bench comprising of Justice Ajay Bhanot was adjudicating an appeal arising from a claim application filed before the Railway Claim Tribunal, which was dismissed in default for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the claimant filed an application for restoration of the claim application but the same was rejected for being time barred. The Court condoned the delay on the part of the claimant while observing as under:
“By filing an application for setting aside the order dismissing the application in default and for restoring the matter, the provisions of the Limitation Act for filing application will not be applicable. There is a time limit of 30 days in filing the application. Therefore, it has to be filed within 30 days. If sufficient cause is made out, Tribunal has got power to condone the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act and liberal approach has to be adopted by the Tribunal. Here, adequate reasons are given by the appellants for condoning the delay. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay.”
BACKGROUND FACTS
The Appellant filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench ("Railway Tribunal") seeking compensation for his son’s death. The claim was dismissed in default for non-prosecution on 09.02.2000. Subsequently, the Appellant filed a restoration application after a delay of 8 months on 04.10.2000. Rule 18 of Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 prescribes a time limit of 30 days for filing an application for setting aside the order of dismissal in default. The Railway Tribunal rejected the restoration application for being time-barred.
The Appellant filed an appeal before the High Court against the orders passed by the Railway Tribunal.
HIGH COURT VERDICT
The issue before the Court was whether the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to the proceedings under the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Railway Claim Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989.
The Court placed reliance on the Gujarat High Court decisions in Shyam Santaram Sali (Marathi) v. Union of India and Dharmesh Madhubhai Parmar v. Union of India, wherein it was held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall apply to proceedings under the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Railway Claim Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989.
The Court noted that the case was transferred from Gorakhpur to Lucknow and due to an official oversight, the transfer of proceedings were not communicated to the Appellant. His absence from the hearing on the day the case was dismissed was beyond his control.
“The application for delay condonation discloses that the cause for delay was genuine, bonafide and the delay was not intentional. This Court also finds that the appellant was always diligent in the prosecution of his claim. Moreover, when the substantive rights of the parties are engaged before the courts, the endeavour of the courts is always to serve substantive justice and not shut the doors of justice to the claimants on technicalities.”
It was opined that in the presence of sufficient cause for delay, the Railway Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay.
The Court has set aside the order rejecting the delay condonation application and restored the matter for adjudication on merits.
Case Title: M/S Krishak Bharti Co-Operative Ltd.Kribhco Surat Gujarat v. Union Of India Thru G.M. Northern Eastern Railway Gorakhpur [FAFO No. - 236 of 2002]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 267
Counsel for Appellant: Ashok Kumar Bhatnagar
Counsel for Respondent: A. Srivastava,Anil Srivastava,J.P.Maurya