This order dismissed common appeals challenging the Railway Claims Tribunal's decision to condone a delay in filing applications under Section 17 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, finding the Tribunal's reasoning satisfactory and the appeals devoid of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010180022015
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MFA/78/2015
THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAYS, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI-11, ASSAM.
VERSUS
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD ASSAM OIL DIVISION
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A CHETRY
Advocate for the Respondent : MS.M SHARMA
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
02.12.2021
Heard Ms. U. Chakraborty, learned Senior Standing Counsel for NF Railways as well as Ms. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
This is a common order for these appeals.
The Railway Claims Tribunal at Guwahati had condoned the delay in filing applications by exercising the power vested upon it by Section 17 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act of 1987.
Section 17 reads as under:
Page No.# 2/2
“17. Limitation.—
(1) The Claims Tribunal shall not admit an application for any claim—
(a) under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 13 unless the application is made within three years from the date on which the goods in question were entrusted to the railway administration for carriage by railway;
(b) under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1)9 [or, as the case may be, sub-section (1A)] of section 13 unless the application is made within one year of occurrence of the accident;
(c) under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 unless the application is made within three years from the date on which the fare or freight is paid to the railway administration: Provided that no application for any claim referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 13 shall be preferred to the Claims Tribunal until the expiration of three months next after the date on which the intimation of the claim has been preferred under section 78B of the Railways Act.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), an application may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1) if the applicant satisfies the Claims Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.”
Section 17 allows the Tribunal to condone the delay if the applicant shows sufficient cause for not making the application within the specified period. For condoning delay in filing an application before a Court or Tribunal, the Court or the Tribunal is the best authority for consideration of a prayer made to that effect. It is the subjective satisfaction of the Court or the Tribunal by which they are empowered to condone delay in filing applications. It is a settled position of law that while dealing with a prayer for condonation of delay, the Courts or the Tribunals should not have a technical effort. These Forums are established by law for dispensing justice to the litigants and the right to justice is a basic requirement of a civil society. People do not come to the Court or the Tribunal unnecessarily. There are some circumstances which compels them to come to these Forums. Therefore, the Forums exercising judicial or quashi judicial power are bound to hear the litigants and, thereafter, they are passed a decision.
In the impugned orders, this Court finds that the Claims Tribunal has elaborately discussed the issue on the basis of certain judgments of superior courts and, thereafter, passed the judgment. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders do not require any interference of this Court.
The present appeals are found to be devoid of merit and stand dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Railway Claims Tribunal's exercise of power to condone delay under Section 17.
Whether the appeals against the Tribunal's dismissal of claims are devoid of merit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
THE UNION OF INDIA
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD ASSAM OIL DIVISION
Parthivjyoti Saikia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
