Bhojiya Khatun & Anr. vs Union Of India

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J

The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims  Tribunal  Act,  1987  assailing  the order/judgement  dated  02.06.2022 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the“Tribunal”), in Case No. MA/DLI/37/2022 titled as, ’Bhojiya Khatun & Ors. vs. Union of India’.

Vide the aforesaid order, the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay filed by the claimants/appellants.

The brief facts of the case, as stated in the claim application, are that on 06.06.2015, one Akhtar (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) alongwith co-passenger Rajiya Alam was travelling from Bapudham Motiyahari to Anand Vihar Terminal, Delhi by passenger train after purchasing  a  second  class  journey  ticket.  When  the  train  was  passing  near Bareilly Railway Station, the deceased accidentally fell  down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

The aforesaid claim application was filed on 21.12.2021 alongwith the application for condonation of delay of 5 years, 06 months and 17 days(approximately 2025 days).

Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  contended  that  the  delay  in  filing the claim application occurred due to genuine and unavoidable circumstances, which the Tribunal failed to properly consider. It is submitted  that the  appellants being  poor,  illiterate,  and  residents  of Nepal, were unaware of the legal remedies and procedure for seeking compensation in a railway accident case, and the delay also occurred due to counsel‟s death and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Per  Contra,  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent  submit  that  the  delay is gross, inordinate and wholly unexplained, and the Tribunal rightly refused to condone the same. It is further contended that poverty, counsel‟s negligence  or  the  COVID-19  pandemic  cannot  justify  delays  ranging  from over five years.

I  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  perused  through the record.

It is noted in the year 2017, the appellants were informed of an Advocate,  practicing  at  the  Civil  Court,  Bareilly.  Thereafter,  the  appellants approached Mr. S.K. Singh, who assured them that he would arrange the necessary certified copies and asked them to return after a few days. Subsequently, in March 2018, the appellants were called to his chamber for signing the case papers. However, despite repeated follow-ups, including in the year 2020, the appellants were asked not to visit frequently and were assured  that  they  would  be  informed  as  and  when  required. Further,  owing to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and restrictions being imposed, the same could not be filed in time. Regrettably, the said counsel passed away in April 2021 due to COVID-19. Thereafter, the appellants approached another counsel, namely Mr. Vineet Srivastav for filing of the claim application and were asked to return after 15 days for signing the papers who ultimately filed the claim application with the said delay.

The Supreme Court in Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh (2010) 6 SCC 786, has held that while considering an Application for condonation of delay no straitjacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion if sufficient and good  grounds have been  made out or  not.  It has been  further stated therein that each case has to be weighed from its facts and the circumstances in which the party acts and behaves.

It is further noted that the Tribunal did not advert to sub-Section (2) of Section 17 the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, which reads as under:

“17. Limitation:

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) an application may be entertained after the period specified in sub-Section (1) if the applicant  satisfies  the  Claims  Tribunal  that  he  had  sufficient  cause  for  not making the application within such period.”

It  is  relevant  to  note  that the  Supreme  Court,  In Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation in Suo Motu Writ Petition(Civil) No.3 of 2020 (Order dated 10.01.2022), bearing in mind the difficulties faced by the litigants, directed that the period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of computing limitation.

The High Court for the State of Telangana, in Thati, Tati Krishnaveni v. Union of India 2024 SCC OnLine TS 275, condoned a delay of 2545 days in filing the claim application, considering the appellants‟ illiteracy, medical conditions, and financial hardship.

The Madras High Court, in the case of M.Suseela Vs. Union of India 2012 SCC OnLine Mad 2100  dated 15.06.2012, condoned the delay of 2136 days in filing claim application by observing that refusal to condone the delay should not result in closing the  doors of justice to real seekers of justice and that  length of time is not criteria but the substance matters and that meritorious case shall not be denied adjudication on account of any  technical plea or procedural wrangles.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Chekka Shantha Kumari v. Union of India 2003 SCC OnLine AP 1170, the delay of 2190 days in filing the claim application was condoned. These authorities reiterate the settled principle that where sufficient cause is shown, delay ought to be condoned to advance substantial justice.

It is further noted in a decision of this Court, in Poonam vs. Union of India 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5757,  on  similar  facts  and  circumstances,  condoned  a  delay  of  4  years,  9 months and 29 days in filing the claim application.

The  Railways  Act  and  the  Railway  Claims  Tribunal  Act  arise  out  of beneficial and social welfare legislation intended to provide compensation to victims of railway accidents and untoward incidents. In such matters, a liberal and justice-oriented approach is required while considering applications for condonation of delay so that genuine claims are not defeated on technical grounds.

In  the  present  case,  sufficient  cause  has  been  shown.  The  appellants were pursuing the matter diligently but were unable to take timely steps due to circumstances beyond their control. These include their limited socio- economic and financial resources, the death of their counsel, and the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected access to courts. In these circumstances, the delay cannot be considered intentional or due  to  negligence,  but  rather  the  result  of  genuine  difficulties  faced  by  the appellants.

In view of the judgments cited and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is set aside, and the delay of 5 years,  06 months and 17 days  (approximately 2025  days)  is  condoned.  It is clarified  that  this  Court  has  not  expressed  any  opinion  on  the  merits  of  the case. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for consideration on merits in accordance with law. The matter shall be listed before the Tribunal in the first instance on 02.04.2026.

Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

A copy of this judgment be communicated to the Tribunal.