( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the Applicant in O. A. No. 8 of 1990 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, aggrieved by the order dated 21-9-1992 passed therein.

( 2 ) THE question involved in this appeal is whether the provisions of the Limitation Act will apply to the Railway Claims Tribunal or not.

( 3 ) THE appellant filed O. A. No. 8/1990 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as the "r. C. T. ") for compensation for shortage and damage alleged to have been suffered by a consignment of tea carried by the Railways from New Gauhati in N. E. F. Railway to Bhongir in South Central Railway. On 23-3-1986 the appellant booked the consignment of goods (tea packets) at Gauhati Railway Station under Railway Receipt No. A-178310 to be delivered at Bhongir in Andhra Pradesh. At the time of delivery of goods at Bhongir Railway Station, it was found that some of the tea packets were in damaged condition and there was also a shortage of 15 Kgs of tea packets. The Station Master of Bhongir Railway Station issued a certificate of shortage and damage. The applicant thereafter preferred a claim for compensation with the 2nd respondent-General Manager, N. F. Railway at Gauhati and the General Manager, South Central Railway at Secunderabad under S. 78-B of the Indian Railways Act. As both the Railway administrations repudiated the claim of the applicant on 28-4-1987 the appellant issued a notice under S. 80, CPC to the respondents. On 16-9-1988, the General Manager of South Central Railway, Secunderabad, sent a letter to the appellant accepting the claim of the appellant for compensation to an extent of Rs. 26,844. 00 on equitable basis. The appellant did not agree for the offer made as above and wrote back to the General Manager of South Central Railway stating that the sum offered was not acceptable and that the Railways should pay the amount as claimed by it taking into consideration the extent of damage suffered by the consignment and also the cause for the damage. As the claim was not settled by the Railways despite further correspondence, the applicant filed the O. A. before the R. C. T. for recovery of Rs. 60,364. 00 from the respondents towards the cost of the tea damaged and short-delivered and other incidental charges.

( 4 ) BEFORE the R. C. T. , the respondents filed counter resisting the claim of the applicant on various grounds and inter alia contended that the claim is barred by limitation.

( 5 ) BASED on the pleadings, the R. C. T. framed the following issues for consideration : (i) Whether the subject consignment suffered shortage and damage while in transit and in the custody of the Railways, and if so, whether the Respondents are responsible for the same? (ii) Whether the shortgage and damage alleged to have been suffered by the consignment was on account of non-compliance of the prescribed packing conditions by the consignor? (iii) Whether the Application is barred by limitation? (iv) What relief?

( 6 ) THE O. A. was heard by the Secunderabad Bench of the R. C. T. comprising Member Technical and Member Judicial. On 16-4-1992, the Members of the Bench differed in their opinion regarding the question whether the claim is barred by limitation or not, and delivered two separate orders in the O. A. The Judicial Member of the Bench held that the claim is not barred by limitation and allowed the O. A. as against respondents 1 and 2 and dismissed the same as against respondent No. 3. However, the Technical Member took the view that the claim is barred by limitation. In view of the divergent views taken by the two Members of the Bench, the matter was referred to third Member (Judicial Member of the Nagpur Bench of the R. C. T.) for opinion. By his order dated 18-9-1992, the third Member concurred with the Technical Member of the Bench which heard the matter, i. e. that the claim of the applicant is barred by limitation. Ultimately, on 21-9-1992, as per the major