Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 26 (GAU)

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India

2019-01-10

SUMAN SHYAM

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ms. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, N.F. Railway, appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.11.2008 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in Application No.Misc.53/2007 filed by the appellant rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay of 16 years in instituting the claim petition. 3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, is that the appellant/Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. had booked 56 tank wagons loaded with Light Diesel Oil (LDO) for transportation from New Bongaigaon Railway Station to IOC Budge Budge (BGB) under Invoice No.24 to 27 and RR No.130460 to 130463 dated 15.07.1991. The train loaded with the LDO had met with an accident on 16.07.1991 in between Jorai and Khamakhyaguri station as a result of which, 38 tank wagons out of the 56 wagons were derailed and the LOD loaded therein got drained out. Since the LDO loaded in the 38 tank wagons was lost due to the aforesaid accident, the appellant had lodged a claim before the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench on 10.07.2007 for realisation of a sum of Rs.1,07,82,974/- along with a prayer under Section 17(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 for condonation of delay of 16 years in filing the said application. 4. By the impugned judgment and order dated 21.11.2008, the learned Tribunal had rejected the prayer for condonation of delay by holding that the appellant/applicant had failed to furnish proper explanation for the delay of 16 years. 5. Referring to the judgment and order dated 21.11.2008 Ms. Sharma contends that there were sufficient materials on record to show that the appellant had not only served a notice upon the Railway administration on 14.08.1991 seeking compensation but the said matter was also pursued by the appellant from time to time. It was only on account of the hope and assurances given by the Railway authorities by stating that the claim of the appellant would be settled without any further delay that the appellant had withheld the claim petition, more so on account of the fact that the IOCL is regularly engaging the Railway authorities for transportation of petroleum oil/LDO and other products. Ms. Ms. Sharma has further argued that it was only on 22.06.2005 that the IOCL authorities became aware for the first time that their claim for compensation was rejected. Having learnt as above the matter was put up before the concerned authorities for processing of the relevant file and eventually the claim petition was filed on 10.07.2007. As such, submits Mr. Sharma, there is sufficient explanations for the delay in this case and the learned Tribunal has illegally rejected the prayer without proper application of mind on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. It is also the submission of Ms. Sharma that on merits her client has a good case and in view of the letter dated 08.02.1989 issued by the Joint Director, Traffic (Commercial/Claims), Railway Board, which recommends the Railway authorities to examine each case on merit and pay the claims instead of repudiating the same merely on technical grounds, this is a fit case which ought to have been entertained by the learned Tribunal on merits rather than rejecting the same on the technical ground of limitation. 7. Refuting the arguments advanced Ms. Sharma, the learned Standing Counsel, N.F. Railway, Mr. B. Sarma, has argued that the appellant has suppressed materials facts and is making an attempt to mislead this Court by contending that only on 22.06.2005, the appellant had become aware of the rejection of the claim for the first time. By inviting the attention of this Court to the letter dated 16.05.1994 (which is a part of Annexure-E), Mr. Sarma contends that the claim of the appellant was repudiated as far back as in the month of May, 1994 and the said fact was also informed to the appellant by the said letter dated 16.05.1994. As such, the question of appellant’s being kept in the dark till 22.06.2005 does not arise in this case. It is also the submission of the learned Standing Counsel, N.F. Railway, that the argument that the appellant had been given hope by the Railway authorities as regards the settlement of its claim is wholly incorrect and stands falsified in view of the letter dated 16.05.1994 issued by the Chief Claims Officer, Eastern Railways, Calcutta. Hence, a prayer has been made by the learned Standing Counsel to dismiss this appeal. 8. Hence, a prayer has been made by the learned Standing Counsel to dismiss this appeal. 8. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for both parties and have also meticulously gone through the materials available on record. 9. At the very outset, it would be pertinent to note herein that Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, confers jurisdiction upon the Railway Claims Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable buy any civil court or any claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railway Act relating to matters enumerated therein which includes the power to grant compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway. 10. Section 16 of the Act of 1987 confers jurisdiction upon the Railway Claims Tribunal to entertain an application and grant relief in respect of the matters referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act. 11. Section 17 of the Act of 1987 deals with limitation. Section 17 will be relevant for the purpose of this case and as such, is quoted herein below for ready reference :- “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) 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 78-B of the Railway Act. 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 78-B of the Railway 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.” 12. In the present case, as noted above, there is no dispute about the fact that the consignment in question was booked on 15.07.1991 and the accident took place on 16.07.1991. On 14.08.1991 the appellant had lodged the claim for compensation of the damages suffered by it but the said claim was rejected by the Railways by the letter dated 16.05.1994. Since then there is no proper explanation as to why the appellant had to wait till 10.07.2007 for filing the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. 13. In the application filed under Section 17(2) of the Act of 1987, the applicant has made an attempt to explain the delay by stating that it had pursued the matter with the Railway authorities and was under the hope and belief that the claim was being processed. However, no material has been laid before this Court to indicate the manner in which the claim has been pursued before the Railway administration. From the materials brought on record, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the appellant has not pursued its claim with due diligence ever since the claim was lodged on 14.08.1991. 14. It is settled that filing of repeated representation cannot enlarge the period of limitation which is prescribed by the statute. In the present case, the appellant has failed to even produce any documentary evidence to show that it was pursuing the claim before the authorities by filing repeated representations. Under the circumstances, it is evident that there was no proper explanation for the delay of nearly 16 years in filing the claim petition. 15. In the present case, the appellant has failed to even produce any documentary evidence to show that it was pursuing the claim before the authorities by filing repeated representations. Under the circumstances, it is evident that there was no proper explanation for the delay of nearly 16 years in filing the claim petition. 15. By referring to a number of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court dealing with the principles applicable in the matter of condonation of delay, the learned Tribunal had concluded that in this case the appellant had failed to furnish any acceptable explanation for the delay of 16 years in filing the application. I do not find any cogent reason to disturb the aforesaid finding recorded by the learned Tribunal. As such, the impugned order is held to be sustainable in the eye of law. 16. In so far as the circular dated 08.02.1989 relied upon by Ms. Sharma is concerned, it is to be noted herein that the prescription of the period of limitation in this case is on the basis of the provision of the statute viz., Section 17 of the Act of 1987 and the said provision of the Act cannot be altered or modified by a notification issued by the Joint Director, Traffic (Commercial/Claims) of the Railway Board. Even otherwise, the language of the notification makes it clear that the same is merely a guideline for the administrative authorities to deal with the claims on merit and the same cannot have any bearing in the matter of considering an application under Section 17(2) of the Act of 1987. 17. For the reasons stated herein above, I am of the view that this appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Notwithstanding this order, it would be open for the IOCL authorities to pursue the matter with the Railway Ministry for any relief that it may be entitled to under the standing Govt. circulars at the administrative level. Send back the LCR.