KOSHY, J. :- Appellants filed an application. O.A. No. 30 of 1999 before the Railway Claims Tribunal. Ernakulam Bench claiming a compensation of Rs. 4.00.00/for the demise of their son in a train accident under Section 125 of the Railways Act. 1989 read with Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. The application was dismissed for default as appellants were absent on one day of the posting dates. They filed an application for setting aside the order dismissing the original application for default. Rule 18 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules. 1989 reads as follows:

"18. Action on application for applicant's default. - (1) Where on the date fixed for hearing of the application or on any other date to which such hearing may be adjourned, the applicant does not appear (when the application is called) for hearing the Tribunal may, in its discretion, either dismiss the application for default or hear and decide it on merit.

(2) Where an application has been dismissed for default and the applicant files an application within thirty days from the date of dismissal and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the application was called for hearing the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the order dismissing the application and restore the same:

Provided, however where the case was disposed of on merits the decision shall not be re-opened except by way of review. “(underlining by us for emphasis)

The restoration application was filed by the appellants with a delay of 20 days with an application for condonation of delay. According to the appellants. Section 18 (3) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act vests the Tribunal with a power as is vested in a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure while dealing with an application to set aside any order of dismissal of any application for default. Hence, the Tribunal can condone the delay. Section 18 (3) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act reads as follows :

"18. Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunal.- xx xx xx

(3) The Claims Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging its functions under this Act. the same powers as are vested in a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit in respect of the following matters. namely xx xx xx

(h) setting aside any order of dismissal of any application for default or any other passed by it ex parte;

(i) any other matter which may be prescribed.

Tribunal dismissed the application relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Birla Cement Works v. G. M., Western Railways and another. (1995) 2 SCC 493 : AIR 1995 SC 1111. Tribunal held that since it is not a civil Court, it has no power to condone delay beyond the time fixed in the rules.

2. In Birla Cement's case. AIR 1995 SC 1111 (supra) relied on by the Tribunal a claim was filed to refund the excess freight paid under Section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act. 1890 corresponding to Section 108 of the Railways Act. 1986. Section 78-B of the Act provides that a person shall not be entitled to refund of overcharge or excess payment in respect of animals or goods carried by Railway unless his claim to the refund has been preferred in writing by him or on his behalf to the Railway Administration to which the animals or goods were delivered to be carried by Railway etc. within six months from the date of the delivery of the animals or goods for carriage by Railway. But application was filed after six months. Section 78-B prescribes only time limit for filing an application before the Railway Administration and not before the Court. Tribunal or quasi judicial authority. Under Section 13 (1) (b) of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act. 1987 if the amount is not paid by the Railway Administration claim can be filed before the Tribunal. Section 13 (I-A) is regarding claims for compensation payable by the railway administration under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. 1989. Section 17 provides for time o