Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Kaushal & Others vs Union Of India And Another on 4 December, 2009
F.A.O. No. 938 of 2008 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No. 938 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: 4-12-2009
Smt. Kaushal & Others ....Appellants
Versus
Union of India and another .....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present: Shri R.K.Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants
Shri Nitin Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.1
HARBANS LAL, J.
This appeal is directed by Smt. Kaushal, Kajal and Monika against the order dated 11.5.2005 passed by the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh vide which the application moved for condonation of delay has been dismissed.
The brief facts, giving rise to this appeal are that on 25.7.2001 the deceased Rajinder Kumar, husband of the appellant widow was going from Railway Station Kaithal to Kurukshetra on a local train and had fallen down due to heavy rush in the train. He sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. The appellants filed a claim petition before the Railways Claims Tribunal under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for brevity the Act) for grant of compensation as envisaged under the law. As the limitation for filing the claim in the present case was one year but due to the circumstances that the petitioner widow was a very poor lady having two minor children and the deceased was sole bread earner of the family and F.A.O. No. 938 of 2008 (O&M) 2 after the death of her husband she has no source of income at all,she filed the application for condonation of delay of 668 days in filing the claim. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 11.5.2005 dismissed the application on the ground of delay holding that there was no sufficient cause for not preferring the claim within limitation.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted with a good deal of force that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned order gravely erred in ignoring the fact that there is no malafide or intentional delay in filing the claim petition. The appellant being helpless illiterate widow residing in a village who had lost her husband, if could not manage the legal expenses or was unaware of legal assistance available to such type of person, cannot be denied her legitimate claim merely on the ground of delay. It has been authoritatively pronounced that the word "sufficient cause" could receive a liberal construction so as to advance the cause of substantial justice. In the present case, the widow of the deceased is entitled to compensation as prescribed by the Government itself and the same cannot be denied to her on the ground of limitation. The opposite party is the Indian Railways and no right has accrued to them which would vanish her claim.
To tide over these submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent maintained that in column No.7 of the application which was moved before the learned Tribunal, it has been mentioned with specificity that the deceased passenger had a valid ticket of local train, which was misplaced in the way. It leaves no scope for doubt that the deceased was not F.A.O. No. 938 of 2008 (O&M) 3 even possessed of the ticket. May be that he was travelling without ticket. As per column No.6 of this application the appellant-widow of the deceased was not present even at the time of cremation of her husband. The reason assigned by her for not filing the claim application within the prescribed period is that she is illiterate lady and due to death of her husband she became mentally disturbed and that being so, she could not move the application well in time. These grounds are not enough to condone the delay in filing the claim application.
After giving a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, the view I am disposed to take is that the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants are unsustainable for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
Section 17(1)(b) of the Act in so far as is relevant for the decision of this case reads as under:-
(1) The Claims Tribunal shall not admit an application for any claim
(b) under sub-clause (ii) of Cl. (a) of sub-section (1) of Sec.13 unless the application is made within one year of occurrence of the accident:
Section 13(1)(a)(ii) reads in the following terms:- (1) The Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that day by any Civil Court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of Railways Act-
(a) relating to the responsibility of the railway F.A.O. No. 938 of 2008 (O&M) 4 administrations as carriers under Chapter VII of the Railway Act in respect of claims for-
(i) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
(ii)compensation payable under Section 82-A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder; and A combined reading of these Sections brings out that claim application before Railways Tribunal could have been moved within one year from the date of the accident. There is no gainsaying the fact that the delay can be condoned, provided sufficient cause is shown by the applicant.
Herein this case, the accident occurred on 25.7.2001. The application was moved on 24.5.2004. Ostensibly, there is delay of as many as 668 days in filing the claim application. While it is difficult to give precisely the meaning of the term "sufficient cause" the cause pleaded must be relevant and meant in relation with the delay. Of course, when the sufficiency of the cause is made out, the length of delay will be an immaterial consideration. The term sufficient cause is to be given a wide connotation and not a restricted meaning. The matter has been left to the judicial discretion of the Court to consider whether the grounds stated by the plaintiff should be accepted as sufficient to permit to file a fresh suit after removing the defects in the suit pending before the Court. Adverting to the instant case, appellant Kaushal has put forth that she being an illiterate and poor lady and having no source of income at all and also being mentally disturbed due to the said demise of her husband, could not move the application within the time prescribed by the Statute. To my mind, these reasons, by no stretch of speculation, can be deemed to be sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay. The Legislature has employed the word "shall" in the language of F.A.O. No. 938 of 2008 (O&M) 5 Section 17(1)(b) of the Act. It clearly indicates that it is obligatory upon the claimant to move the claim application well within time or to show sufficient cause for the delay crept in filing the same. In the instant one no sufficient cause has been shown for making the claim application after expiry of limitation period.
As a sequel of the above discussion, this appeal is dismissed.
(HARBANS LAL) JUDGE December 4, 2009 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No