The importance of providing acceptable explanation for delay in filing the application under Section 17(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

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. 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 16.05.199