The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to appeals filed under Section 23 of the Indian Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act.

R.S. Jha, J.

1. By order dated 20.2.2017 the following question has been referred for being answered by this Bench.

“Whether the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is attracted to the appeal preferred under Section 23 of the Indian Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 beyond the period of limitation ?”

2. As is evident from a perusal of order dated 20.2.2017, the matter has been referred to a Division Bench on account of the fact that the learned Single Judge taking note of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. Kunjmati v. Union of India, AIR 2016 MP 37 (M.A No.3108 of 2009 decided on 6.11.2015) wherein a Single Bench of this Court has held that the provisions contained in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, providing for extending the period of limitation on showing sufficient cause would not be attracted to the provisions of an appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal Act’), and, therefore, the appellate Court has no power to condone the delay in filing such appeals and the contrary view taken in the case of Smt. Veena Rao Phalke v. Union of India 2011 (3) MPHT 68, wherein the appeal filed after the lapse of the period of limitation prescribed under section 23 of the Claims Tribunal Act, was entertained by condoning the delay on an application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, was of the opinion that there is a conflict of opinion on the issue and has, therefore, referred the aforesaid question for adjudication before the Larger Bench.

3. The learned Single Judge, while referring the matter, has also taken note of the fact that in the decision of the Orissa High Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Saboo, AIR 2014 Orissa 46, it has been held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply and that the Supreme Court in the case of Khussad and another v. Union of India, SLP (C) No.10024-10025 of 2011 has condoned the delay while granting leave. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the aforesaid conflicting views, has referred the question for being answered by a Larger Bench.

4. Before we consider and decide the question referred to us, it is necessary to take note of the fact that this Court, in the case of Smt. Veena Rao Phalke (supra), did not deal with or decide the issue relating to applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to an appeal filed under section 23 of the Claims Tribunal Act whereas this issue was directly considered and decided by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Kunjmati (supra) and the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the difference between Sections 17 and 23 of the Claims Tribunal Act and the omission under section 23(2) of the Act, to provide for a provision for condoning delay, has quoted para-17 of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Hukumdev Narain Yadav (supra) and para-35 of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Hongo India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), and after considering the provisions of the Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has recorded a conclusion against the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, in the following terms in paras 10 to 14 :-

10. If in the backdrop of aforesaid authoritative pronouncement, the scheme of the special law in question namely the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is examined, it may be seen that the preamble reads as hereunder :

Preamble. - An Act to provide for the establishment of a Railway Claims Tribunal for inquiring into and determining claims against a railway administration for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration on non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to it to be carried by railway or for the refund of fares or freight or for compensation for death or injury to passengers occurring as a result of railway accidents or untoward incidents and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

11. Section 2 contains definitions