M/S BAJAJ STEEL v. THE UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K P MAHESWARI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NF RLY BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG Date : 21-09-2022 ORDER Heard Ms. C. Saha, learned counsel for the appellant alongwith Mr. H.P. Guwala appearing on behalf of Mr. B.K. Das, for Railway Standing counsel and Mr. R. Das appearing on behalf of Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel for respondent Page No.# 2/5 No.2. 2] This is an appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the Judgment & Order dated 02.03.2021 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in Miscellaneous Application No. MA/GHY/2014/0021. 3] Ms. C. Saha, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that in the Misc. Application for condonation of delay of 17 months and 10 days to 06 months and 18 days in preferring the claim application for refund of Rs.2,34,154/- under section 17(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, the learned Tribunal had rejected the Misc. Application without evaluating the reasons stated and rejected to condone the delay of 17 months and 10 days to 06 months and 18 days stating that the reasons cited for the delay are not sufficient and not acceptable. 4] The reason for the delay was that the appellant/applicant was awaiting for the outcome of a judgment of the Gauhati High Court on the issue of refund of terminal charges which is the central issue of the claim application for which the Misc. Application has been preferred and subsequently the matter is now under challenged by the Railway before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the second reasons is owing to the illness of appellant/applicant counsel’s father for which the counsel was not able to file the claim application within the prescribed limitation period. 5] Mr. H.P. Guwala, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the issue Page No.# 3/5 regarding condonation of delay has been decided by this Court in case No. MFA/54/2001 dated 21.7.2022, wherein several similar applications in preferring the appeal which raised a common question as to whether the Railway Claims Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claims applications being barred by limitation, was taken up. All the appeals raised the same question of law and were predominantly of a similar fact, this Court in the common judgment dated 21.7.2022 disposed of the appeals and that the instant case is also of a similar nature and is covered by the decision of this court in case No. MFA/54/2001. 6] Having heard the submission of both the learned counsels and on perusal of the Judgment and Order dated 21.7.2022 passed by a coordination bench of this Court in case No. MFA 54/2001, wherein the appeals in MFA No.54/2021, MFA No.15/2021, MFA No.16/2021, MFA No.18/2021, MFA No.21/2021, MFA No.20/2021, MFA No.22/2021, MFA No.23/2021, MFA No.24/2021, MFA No.25/2021, MFA No.26/2021, MFA No.28/2021, MFA No.29/2021, MFA No.30/2021, MFA No.31/2021, MFA No.32/2021, MFA No.33/2021, MFA No.34/2021, MFA No.35/2021, MFA No.36/2021, MFA No.37/2021, MFA No.38/2021, MFA No.39/2021, MFA No.40/2021, MFA No.41/2021, MFA No.42/2021, MFA No.43/2021, MFA No.44/2021, MFA No.45/2021, MFA No.46/2021, MFA No.47/2021, MFA No.48/2021, MFA No.49/2021, MFA No.50/2021, MFA No.51/2021, MFA No.52/2021, MFA No.53/2021, MFA No.56/2021, MFA No.57/2021, MFA No.58/2021, MFA No.60/2021, MFA No.61/2021, MFA No.62/2021, MFA No.64/2021, MFA No.65/2021, MFA No.66/2021, MFA No.67/2021, Page No.# 4/5 MFA No.68/2021, MFA No.69/2021, MFA No.70/2021, MFA No.71/2021, MFA No.73/2021, MFA No.78/2021, MFA No.79/2021, MFA No.81/2021, MFA No.82/2021, MFA No.94/2021, MFA No.103/2021, MFA No.111/2021, MFA No.135/2021, MFA No.140/2021, MFA No.156/2021, MFA No.160/2021, MFA No.167/2021 and MFA No.176/2021 were all taken up together wherein they are predominantly of the similar fact and the appeal raised are a common question as to whether the Railway Claims Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claims applications being barred by limitation. 7] The Coordinate bench of this court, after a detailed discussion of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 held that the basic reason behind the enactment of the Act of 1987 was for the benefit of the claimants so that an expeditious payment of compensation or settlement of the disputes can be done through a specialized Tribunal and to reduce the burden on the various Civil Courts in the country and that the Act was a beneficial as well as a welfare Act. The court held that delay in filing the claim applications before the Tribunal was predominantly on the account of the appellants/applicants was awaiting for the outcome of a judgment of the Gauhati High Court on the issue of refund of terminal charges which is the central issue of the claim application for which the Misc. Application has been preferred and subsequently the matter is now under challenged by the Railway before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the second reasons is owing to the illness of appellant/applicant counsel’s father for which the counsel was not able to file the claim application within the prescribed limitation period. The court on discussion of the reasons for delay given by the Page No.# 5/5 appellants/applicants held that the MFA No.100/2011 pending in the Gauhati High Court was disposed on 25.06.2015 and WP(C ) No.5029/2009 were disposed by the Supreme Court on 19.06.2016 for non prosecution thus the plea taken on account of these two cases were not sufficient grounds for condonation of delay. The court further noted that no documents were produced to substantiate the claim that the father of their counsel was ill. This Court thus while condoning the delay in respect of those claim applications which are within 3 (three) months from the last date of filing imposed the cost of Rs.10,000/- however, in respect of other applications filed beyond 3 (three) months from the last date of filing of the claim applications, the Court dismissed the appeals by upholding the impugned judgment of the claim tribunal, as being barred by limitation. 8] In the instant case, wherein the facts and circumstances of the case is similar to those discussed above and it is seen that the application for condonation of delay is for 17 months and 10 days to 06 months and 18 days. Thus, in view of the observations made by the coordinate bench in case No. MFA. No. 54/2021 dated 21/07/2022, this court finds it fit to hold that this is a covered case and dismissed the MFA No.97 of 2021 accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant