M/S. DELHI BHATTA WELFARE ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA

1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the „Digest‟? No REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The appellant booked coal consignments from Singrauli to Tughlakabad under Invoices No.3 to 19 (RR Nos.011437 to 011453) dated March 05, 1982. As per the relevant rules, the consignments had to be booked by the Railways via the shortest route at the cheapest rate. The appellant had booked the consignments via Chopan-Chunar which was the shortest route and the freight charges were also invoiced accordingly by the forwarding station. However, 2010:DHC:1781 on arrival of the consignments at the destination station, an excess freight of Rs.52,153/- was demanded from the appellant by the Railways on the ground that the consignment was booked and carried via a longer route. The appellant did pay the extra freight of Rs.52,153/-, but under protest. The payment was made in March, 1982. It is not disputed that after making the payment, the appellant was engaged in correspondence with the respondent resulting in a letter dated January 20, 1986 from the latter informing the former that the amount of Rs.29,050/- had been provisionally sanctioned and that the same would be remitted to it subject to the appellant furnishing the Power of Attorney from the party/person who paid charges authorizing it to receive payments. In response to the letter dated January 20, 1986, the appellant vide letter dated January 24, 1986 submitted 16 Special Power of Attorneys from the parties/persons who paid the charges, authorizing it to receive the payments on their behalf. Thereafter, the respondent issued another letter dated January 30, 1986 informing the appellant that the sum of Rs.29,050/- had been provisionally passed as refundable and the same would be remitted to it by the Additional FA & CAO, TA Branch after necessary verification by that office. The payment of Rs.29,050/- was received by the appellant on February 27, 1986 but under protest, as according to the appellant, the respondent was also liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.23,103/-. In view of the non-payment of full amount, a suit for the recovery of balance sum of Rs.23,103/- was filed against the respondent, i.e. the Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railways. The suit was filed on October 20, 1987 initially in the Court of the Senior Sub Judge. It was later transferred to the Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). It is the case of the appellant that the cause of action to file the suit arose for the first time on February 27, 1986 when instead of making the full payment of Rs.52,153/-, only part payment was made. However, the Tribunal vide order dated August 14, 1996 has held the suit to be barred by the law of limitation. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the present appeal was preferred by the appellant. The Tribunal has held that it is Article 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which is applicable to the facts of the case and that the suit having not been filed within three years in terms of the said Article, the same was barred by time. Before I proceed further, let me reproduce Article 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It runs as under:- Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run For money payable Three years When the money is by the defendant to received. the plaintiff for money received by the defendant, for the plaintiff‟s use The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the order of the Tribunal on the ground that it is not Article 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which is attracted to the facts of the present case, but Article 113 of the Act. According to the counsel, the facts of the present case are such that no other Article of Limitation Act fits the bill except Article 113 and that what is to be seen is whether the suit is within limitation in terms of the said Article. Insofar as Article 113 is concerned, it provides that, “in a suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule, the period of limitation will be three years from the date when the right to sue accrues.” In view of the aforesaid, the question that arises for consideration is whether it is Article 24 or Article 113 of the Limitation Act which is applicable to the facts of the present case. What is of significance is that after the sum of Rs.52,153/- was paid by the appellant to the respondent, the parties remained in correspondence with each other and what is further of significance is that it was for the first time on January 20, 1986 that the appellant was informed by the respondent that out of the sum of Rs.52,153/-, only a sum of Rs.29,050/- had been provisionally sanctioned and the same would be remitted to it subject to the appellant furnishing Power of Attorney from the party/person who paid charges authorizing it to receive payments. In view of this letter, there was no occasion for the appellant to have filed the suit for the recovery of the balance amount from any date prior to January 20, 1986. It was only when part payment was made by the respondent to the appellant as against the sum of Rs.52,153/- that the appellant was forced to take recourse to court of law for the recovery of the balance amount by filing a suit in the Court of the Senior Sub Judge on October 20, 1987 which was well within three years of letter dated January 20, 1986. It cannot, in the circumstances, be said to be barred by limitation. The finding of the Tribunal that it is Article 24 of the Limitation Act which was applicable is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. For what has been noticed above, I set-aside the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal and hold the appellant entitled to the sum of Rs.23,103/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till realization. As the claim pertains to the year 1982, the Railway is directed to make the payment within five months from today, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% instead of 6%. REKHA SHARMA, J. MARCH 25, 2010 ka