The liberal approach to condonation of delay and the interpretation of 'overcharges' under the Railways Act were central to the Court's decision.

JUDGMENT

B.P. Routray, J. - Present Appellant-NALCO (National Aluminum Company Limited) is a Public Sector Undertaking Company. The Respondent-Union is the Railways Administration i.e. East Coast Railway (ECoR).

2. Order dated 27th April, 2022 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench is impugned in the present appeal. In the impugned order, learned Tribunal has refused to condone the delay in presenting the application of the Appellant as not maintainable and dismissed the claim.

3. NALCO booked consignments of private rail wagons (rakes), Viz. BTAP, BTCS, BTPN for transportation by railways between Visakhapatnam - Damanjodi and vice-versa. There are two routes between the destination points, i.e. one route is KK Line and another KR Line. KK Line is the shorter route and KR Line is the longer route, and the difference is 100 Kms in distance between two. According to NALCO, though the consignments were booked through KR Line as per rationalization scheme, but in fact the railways hauled the rakes through the shorter route and charged freight for longer route.

4. NALCO raised a claim for refund of surplus freight charges, termed as overcharges, to the tune of Rs.63,55,93,751/-received by Railways for the period from April, 2016 to March, 2021. The claim application was filed under Section 16 read with Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred as 'RCT Act') on 9th December, 2021, which was registered as O.A.Case No.27 of 2021 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench. Along with the claim application a petition for condonation of delay was filed, since as per stipulation made under Section 17 of the RCT Act, it is to be made within three years. For convenience, the relevant provision under Section 17 is reproduced below:

'17.Limitation - (1) The Claims Tribunal shall not admit an application for any claim -

xxx xxx xxx

(c) under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 unless the application is made within three years from the date on which the fare or freight is paid to the railway administration:

xxx xxx xxx'

5. The objection was raised by Respondent-Railways before the Tribunal to the effect that the mandatory notice required under Section 106 of the Railways Act was not served by the Appellant before filing of the claim application and in absence of such notice the claim application is not maintainable, in addition to the prescription of limitation of three years stated above. Section 106 of the Railways Act is reproduced below:

'106. Notice of claim for compensation and refund of overcharge.-(1) A person shall not be entitled to claim compensation against a railway administration for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of goods carried by railway, unless a notice thereof is served by him or on his behalf,-

(a) to the railway administration to which the goods are entrusted for carriage; or

(b) to the railway administration on whose railway the destination station lies, or the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration occurs, within a period of six months from the date of entrustment of the goods.

(2) Any information demanded or enquiry made in writing from, or any complaint made in writing to, any of the railway administrations mentioned in sub-section (1) by or on behalf of the person within the said period of six months regarding the non-delivery or delayed delivery of the goods with particulars sufficient to identify the goods shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to be a notice of claim for compensation.

(3) A person shall not be entitled to a refund of an overcharge in respect of goods carried by railway unless a notice therefor has been served by him or on his behalf to the railway administration to which the overcharge has been paid within six months from the date of such payment or the date of delivery of such goods at the destination station, whichever is later.'

6. The learned Tribunal while dealing with the prayer for condonation of dela