1. Present First Appeal has been preferred by the Appellants-Original claimants under Section-23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1988, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 06/04/2011 passed in Case No. IANo.22/2008 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad on the grounds stated in the memo of present appeal.
2. As stated in the appeal memo, the incident in question has occurred on 06/02/2005 and the petition has been filed on 05/09/2008 i.e. after delay of two years and seven months. The impugned order has been passed by the Tribunal referring to Section-17(1)(b) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act observing that in view of the provisions in the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, delay cannot be condoned and such application is barred as per Section-17(2) of the Act. Provisions of Section-17(2) provides that:
“(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 Claim Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.”
3. Learned advocate Mr. P. J. Mehta submitted that due to said incident, the appellant was under tremendous stress and mental agony and could not file such application within stipulated time. It is also stated that she was not having knowledge about the same. It is therefore submitted that the application was filed on the ground of delay as per Section- 17(2) of the Act and therefore, the said Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay by allowing the said application.
4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Ravi Karnavat for the respondent resisted that application and submitted that the delay could not be condoned and the trial court has refused to condone the same properly.
5. In view of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether present appeal can be entertained.
6. It is evident that the impugned judgment and order has been passed referring to Section-17 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act refusing to condone the delay. However, the Railway Claims Tribunal Act has to be read with the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules. The provision of Section- 18(3) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act has been considered in decision of the Kerala High Court in case of Pushpakaran v. Union of India reported in 2008 ACJ 2469 where delay is condoned. This very issue has been discussed by the Kerala High Court and has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
7. It is required to be noted that the Railway Claims Tribunal Act has been set up with an object and purpose as stated therein to expedite such petition for the claims, and when such a Tribunal has been set up with the Rules, which refer to the procedure, the Courts or the Tribunals are normally governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. The Tribunal would function and would have all the trappings of the civil court inasmuch as the proceedings are conducted applying the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, though the Railway Claims Tribunal has been established by virtue of special provisions of Railway Claims Tribunal Act which again brought for a stipulated period of limitation as stated under Section-17 of the Act. There is no specific exclusion that Code of Civil Procedure would not be applicable. Therefore unless there is a specific exclusion, the provisions of the Limitation Act particularly Section-5 of the Limitation Act will not come into play. The same shall be attracted and Section-5 of the limitation Act would also apply. It is required to be mentioned that if the tribunal functioning under the special statute providing for a period of limitation or a separate provisions would govern the appeal. However, at the same time the tribunal having the trappings of the civil court conducted the proceedings in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure then unless there is a specific exclusion of limitation act or code of civil procedure, all the procedure would be in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, once the procedure is conducted according to the Civil Procedure Code, the limitation act would be attracted. Even if there is special statute providing for a procedure as far as Limitation Act which has to be considered with the central act provided for the aspect of limitation act. Provisions of Section-29(2) read thus:
“Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.”
8. Therefore, unless there is a specific provision, the Limitation Act would be attracted and it will apply to all the proceedings under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. Moreover, a useful reference can also be made to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in case of P.Sarathy v. State Bank of India, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 355. The said decision has interpreted the provisions of Section-5 of the Limitation Act and observed that Section-5 of the Limitation Act would be attracted and the court need not be a civil court, but it will be sufficient if the authority or Tribunal have trappings of court. In other words any such authority or Tribunal having the trappings of the court will be governed by the Limitation Act, and as there is no specific exclusion, the Code of Civil Procedure will apply. Therefore, present First Appeal deserves to be allowed.
9. It is in these circumstances, the present Appeal stands allowed. The impugned order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad refusing to condone the delay is hereby quashed and set aside. The delay in filing the claim petition being IA No.22 of 2008 is condoned.
10. It is further directed that the Railway Claims Tribunal shall decide the application/claim petition on merits in accordance with law as early as possible preferably within a period of three months.
(RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J.) (ila)