Rajaram & Ors. vs Union Of India

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J

CM APPL. 52396/2022

By way of present application, the applicant/appellant seeks condonation of delay of 53 days in filing the appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant 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.

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 appellant  has  been  able  to  show  sufficient  cause  for  the  delay  in  filing  the present appeal.

Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay  of 53 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

The application is disposed of in the above terms.

FAO 312/2022

The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 assailing the order/judgment dated 30.05.2022 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the“Tribunal”), in Case No. MA/DLI/06/2022 titled as,’Rajaram & 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 without examining it on merits.

The brief facts of the case, as stated in the claim application, are that on  11.03.2016, one  Surendra (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  “deceased”)  is stated to have undertaken a journey from Nagariya sadat to Bahadurgarh by a passenger train after purchasing a second-class journey ticket. It is alleged that after boarding the train, when the train had moved from Nagariya Sadat Railway  Station,  the  deceased  accidentally  fell  from  the  moving  train,  as  a result of which he sustained serious injuries and died on the spot.

The aforesaid claim application was filed on 20.12.2021 alongwith the application for condonation of delay of 4 years, 9 months and 12 days(approximately 1747 days).

It is relevant to note that despite being served, there has been no appearance  on  behalf  of  the  respondent  on  the  last  few  dates.  Accordingly, this Court has proceeded to hear the matter in their absence.

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  persons  who  had  relied on  their  counsel,  and  the  delay occurred  due  to  death  of  their  counsels  and the COVID-19 pandemic.

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

It is noted that the appellants belong to a financially constrained background.  It  has  been  claimed  that  they  had  initially  engaged  a  counsel, namely Sh. Bakshi (name withheld) practicing at the Civil Court, Bareilly district. In December 2018, the appellants came to know that they were misled and the claim application had, in fact, not been filed. The appellants were further told that the claim relating to the railway accident was required to be filed before the appropriate forum at Lucknow and not at Bareilly. Regrettably, the said counsel later passed away due to a heart attack.

Thereafter, the  appellants  contacted another  counsel, namely Sh. S.K. Singh, and requested him to prepare and file an appropriate claim application on their behalf. Further, owing to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and restrictions being imposed, the same could not be filed in time. Unfortunately, the said counsel also passed away in April 2021 due to COVID-19 pandemic.

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, 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 counsels, 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,  9  months  and  12  days  (approximately 1747  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.