Bhulai & Anr. vs Union Of India

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J

CM APPL. 8679/2023

By way of present application, the applicants/appellants seeks condonation of delay of 370 days in filing the appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were unable to file the appeal within the prescribed period. It is submitted that the delay is bona fide and neither intentional nor deliberate. It is further submitted that the appellants belong to an economically weaker section and, due to paucity of funds, were unable to obtain timely legal advice.

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, opposes the present application.

It is noteworthy that in Mohsina v. Union of India (2017) SCC OnLine Del 10003 , a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court condoned a delay of 804 days in filing the appeal, taking into account the weak economic condition of the appellants/claimants.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, and guided by  the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision as well as the beneficial nature of the concerned legislation, this Court finds that the appellants  has been  able to show sufficient  cause  for  the delay in  filing the present appeal.

Accordingly,  the  application  is  allowed  and  the  delay of  370  days  in filing the present appeal is condoned.

The application is disposed of in the above terms.

FAO 43/2023

The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 assailing the order/judgment dated 22.11.2021 passed by the Railway Claims, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the“Tribunal”), in Case No. MA/DLI/242/2021 titled as,’Bhulai & Ors. vs. Union of India’.

Vide the aforesaid order, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application along with the application for condonation of delay filed by the claimants/appellants on the ground of limitation as well as the failure of the applicant to file a reply to the objections filed by the respondent despite opportunity.

The brief facts of the case, as stated in the claim application, are that on 29.09.2015, one Deepak (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) is stated  to  have  undertaken  a  journey  from  Bareilly  to  Rudauli  by  Guwahati Express train after purchasing a second class journey ticket for said journey when  the train  was passing near  Koli  Junction, he  accidently fell down  and sustained serious injuries all over his body and died on the spot.

The aforesaid claim application was filed on 02.08.2021 alongwith the application for condonation of delay of 4 years, 10 months and 2 days(approximately 1767 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 are poor and illiterate who were unaware of their legal rights and had relied entirely upon their counsel, whose negligence resulted in non-filing of the claim despite repeated follow-ups. It is further contended that the appellants were under severe financial hardship after the death of their son, who was the sole earning member, and the mother was also unwell for a considerable period, causing further delay. Additionally, the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to the delay.

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 four years.

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

It  is  noted  that  the  appellants  belong  to  a financially constrained  and illiterate  background.  It  has  been  claimed  that  they  had  initially  engaged  a counsel through his clerk, namely Mishra (name withheld),  to whom  they handed over all relevant documents for filing the claim petition. The appellants made several visits to the said counsel’s office between 2016 and 2019  and  were  repeatedly  assured  that  their  case  would  be  filed,  however, they were continuously misled and later discovered that no claim petition had in fact been filed. Consequently, they retrieved their documents in October 2019.

Thereafter, the appellants engaged another counsel to prepare and file the claim petition. However, due to their severe financial hardship, the illness of the deceased’s mother for a considerable period, and the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic along with the restrictions imposed during that  time,  the  claim petition  could not  be  filed  within  the  prescribed period.

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 petition.

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 and the disruption caused by the  COVID- 19 pandemic. 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 4 years,  10  months  and  2  days  (approximately 1767  days)  in  filing  the  claim application 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.