Delhi High Court
Nirmal Jeet Kaur vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 January, 2011
Author: Mool Chand Garg
Bench: Mool Chand Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 385/2009
Reserved on:12.01.2011
Decided on : 14.01.2011
NIRMAL JEET KAUR .
.... Appellant
Through Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR .... Respondents
Through Mr. G.S Chaturvedi Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed Yes
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
: MOOL CHAND GARG,J
*
1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 05.06.2009 passed by the Ld. Railways Claim Tribunal, whereby the Ld. Tribunal dismissed the condonation of delay application filed by the appellant after two years under Railway Claim Tribunal Act. 1987.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are; that the husband of the appellant who was the only bread winner in the family died an untimely and accidental death on 25.11.2006. This completely devastated the life of appellant and her two children and took appellant a while to get back to her normal self. Further, appellant being a housewife and having no occasion to deal with the outside world, procuring documents for her from (1) police (ii) Lady Hardinge Medical College and Smt Sucheta Kriplani Hospital, New Delhi (iii) New Delhi Municipal Council
(iv) Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee (DSCMC). This has taken a lot of time. According to the appellant procurement of certificates from DSCMC indicating occupation of her late husband and name and addresses of the employer got delayed as the formalities/ dues had to be cleared. Further the delay was also caused because appellant had tough time finding some work to keep the body and soul FAO 385/2009 Page 1 of 5 of her‟s and her family together. Moreso, most of the time, the social pressures and traditions kept her house bound.
3. Thereafter, the appellant sought help from one Shri Rashpal Singh R/o Shakurbasti, Ranibagh, Delhi who was an inspector in the Railways itself. Unfortunately he also died in an accident in the Railways on 3.10.2007. That was again a big setback for the appellant and the entire process of filing for compensation pushed back by several months and appellant had to restart the entire process after getting the documents from the family of the railway inspector. Finally, the appellant received guidance from a friend of her late husband who is a Granthi in the gurudwara and filed the claim application on 23.10.2008. She also filed an application for condonation of delay under Section 17(2) of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act.
4. The learned Tribunal however, dismissed the said application for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition on the ground that the delay has not been sufficiently explained. However, the Tribunal has nowhere discussed about the grounds taken by the appellant for condoning the delay and analyzing them to consider as to whether they supply sufficient reasons to condone the delay. The relevant extract of the impugned order is produced here as under:-
"It is not in dispute that there is an inordinate delay of about two years in filing the application for compensation before the Tribunal. Section 17(2) of the RCT Act empowers the Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the claims after the period specified if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that she had sufficient cause for not making the application before the Tribunal within the period prescribed in Section 17(1) of the RCT Act. Therefore it is incumbent upon the applicant to show that she has sufficient cause for not making the application within the prescribed period. „Sufficient cause‟ is an expression, which found in various statutes. It essentially means as adequate or enough. There cannot be any straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished for the delay caused in making the application for compensation within the prescribed period. In the instant case, the explanation offered for the abnormal delay of about two years is that; firstly, the applicant was in a great shock, secondly, the procuring of documents from the police etc. took some more time thirdly, the person who was helping her has died on 03.10.2007; and ultimately, under the guidance of a friend FAO 385/2009 Page 2 of 5 of her husband, she filled up the form and it was about in July, 2008 that she was advised to make certain corrections and additions and ultimately after attending of this she filed the application for compensation before the Tribunal on 23.10.2008. Thus, there are manifold explanations seeking condonation of such an inordinate delay in filing the claim application. Each of these explanations are as vague as possible without indicating any detail as to what was the duration of her shock, the time taken for procuring documents and why the applicant took such a long time from 03.10.2007 to July 2008 to make the application and, even thereafter, why she took such a long time to make the application before the Tribunal after curing the defects. All these aspects of the matter have been left as vague as possible. The law is well settled that the delay cannot be condoned only on the sympathetic ground. It appears to me that the explanation put forth in the application is merely a device to cover the ulterior purpose such as latches or lapses on the part of the applicant or an attempt to save limitation in an underhand way. No doubt the expression „sufficient cause‟ in Section 17(2) of the RCT Act must receive liberal construction. But then each case has to be considered on particularities of its own facts. In the instant case, if no sufficient cause is shown then in such a situation the Tribunal cannot afford to raise any presumption about sufficient cause in favour of the applicant in the garb of liberal interpretation of the expression „ sufficient cause‟ used under Section 17(2) of the RCT Act, exposing the railway administration to this time barred application, simply because it has been field by the dependents of the deceased. I am not satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of this case any explanation, much less a reasonable or satisfactory one, has been offered by the applicant for condonation of delay of about two years in making the claim application. The period of limitation prescribed under Section 17 of the RCT Act may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all of its regour when the statue so prescribes, and, the Tribunal has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. Laws always assist vigilant and not those who sleep over the matter. There was a lack of diligence and vigilance shown in the making the claim application before the Tribunal that resulted in gross delay in making the claim. I find that there has been a complacent negligence on the part of the applicant, apart from towering delay of about 2 years in making the claim petition. Under the circumstances, therefore, the delay in filing the claim application is not capable of being condoned and hence, the application for condonation of delay filed by the applicant is liable to be dismissed.FAO 385/2009 Page 3 of 5
In the result, therefore the application for condoantion of delay filed by the applicant is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the claim application filed by the applicant also stands dismissed. But in the facts and circumstances of the case there is, however, no order as to costs."
5. I have heard the parties and would like to observe that it has been held in number of judgments of Apex Court and High Court that delay should be condoned with a view to do substantial justice and since our country is socialist, democratic republic and the Railways Act is social welfare legislation insofar as it enables grant of compensation, it becomes necessary that the courts while deciding such cases should always adopt a liberal approach. In this regard, I would like to quote a paragraph of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 223, wherein it has been held that:-
"words „sufficient cause‟ should be construedliberally- Acceptability of explanantion for the delay is the sole criterion, length of delay not relevant. In absence of anything showing malafide or deliberate delay as dilatory tactic, Court should normally condone the delay."
6. Thus, what could be gathered from the above quoted judgment is that while considering the question of condonation of delay, the only caveat for not allowing condonation of delay would be if the delay is deliberate or the explanation smacks of malafide being part of a dilatory strategy. If there is a genuine lapse on the part of the litigant concerned, the delay should be condoned.
7. In the present case the appellant being a housewife undergoing various hardships in life since the death of her husband had been running from pillar to post to procure necessary documents to file the claim application and to which she finally succeeded on 23.10.2008. The Ld. Tribunal should have dealt with these aspects keeping into consideration the above judgment of the Supreme Court, however, he has not done so.
8. In such circumstances, the delay application is condoned and hence appeal allowed with no orders as to cost. Consequently, the claim petition of the appellant will now have to be tried on merits by the FAO 385/2009 Page 4 of 5 Railway Claims Tribunal and for that purpose, the parties shall appear before the Railway Claims Tribunal on 27.01.2011.
9. A copy of the order be sent to the Tribunal along with record.
MOOL CHAND GARG, J JANUARY 14, 2011 'sg/anb' FAO 385/2009 Page 5 of 5