Gitanjali Santosh Majhi And ... vs Union Of India, Thr General ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4964 Bom

                                         1                    FA No. 386/2016

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                       
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            FIRST APPEAL NO.386 OF 2016




                                               
      1) GITANJALI WD/O SANTOSH MAJHI 
         Age: 35 Yrs., occu. Household.




                                              
      2) Avinash s/o Santosh Majhi,
         Age: 16 Yers., occj. Education.




                                      
      3) Biplobo s/o Santosh Maji
         Age: 11 Yrs., occ. Nil.
                             
      4) Shushlaya D/o Santosh Majhi,
         Ag: 7 Yrs., occu. Nil.
                            
         (Appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are 
          minors and under Guardian
          of their mother, i.e.
          applicant No.1.)
      


      5) Saebani Wd/o Sudarshan Majhi,
         Age: 69 Yrs., occu. Househol,
   



         All R/o Bhatigaon, Tq.Kalampur,
         District Kalhandi (Orissa)     = APPELLANTS
                                       (Orig.Applicants)





                       VERSUS
      Union of India,
      Through General Manager,





      Central Railway, Chatrpati Shivaji
      Terminus, Mumbai.                    = RESPONDENT
                                      (Orig. Respondent)
                               ...

      Mr. Vishnu B. Madan, Advocate for Appellants: 
      Mr. Navandar Manish N., Advocate For Respondent.
                                       -----




    ::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2016               ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2016 00:20:14 :::
                                              2                      FA No. 386/2016

                                   CORAM :  P.R.BORA, J.

DATE :

25 th

August,2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1) Heard learned Counsel appearing for the

respective parties. Admit. By consent, taken up

for final disposal.

. The appellants have filed the present

appeal, challenging the judgment and order dated

17th December, 2015 passed by the Railway Claims

Tribunal, Nagpur bench (for short, the Tribunal )

in Claim Application No.MA/NGP/2015/0020. The

Tribunal has rejected the application seeking

condonation of delay caused in filing the claim

petition before the Tribunal and has

consequently, dismissed the claim petition also

being barred by limitation.

2) Learned Counsel appearing for the

appellants/original applicants, inviting my

attention to the observations made by the

Tribunal in the impugned of its judgment,

submitted that the Tribunal has adopted too

technical approach and has ignored the aspect

that the legal heirs of deceased Santosh will be

loosing all remedies if the delay, which is not

inordinate is not condoned.

. The learned Counsel submitted that as

has been observed by the tribunal, the counsel

appearing for the applicant, who was supposed to

take certain steps, did not take the said steps

promptly and that was the reason that the claim

petition could not be filed within stipulated

period of limitation.

. The learned Counsel submitted that

initially the petition was filed before the

Railway Claims Tribunal at Bombay and the same

was filed well within period of limitation.

However, the said claim petition came to be

dismissed by the Tribunal at Mumbai on the ground

of jurisdiction. The learned Counsel further

submitted that the learned Counsel, who was

representing the applicnats at the relevant time,

should have promptly filed the claim petition

before the Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal, however,

the same could not be filed and the delay of 560

days occurred in filing the said petition.

3) The Tribunal has declined to condone the

said delay by referring to various judicial

pronouncements on the point of limitation. On

perusal of the said judgments, it appears to me

that the ratio laid down in the said judgments

could not have been applied by the Tribunal to

the facts of the present case. The Tribunal has

adopted a pedantic approach in deciding the

application for condonation of delay and ignoring

the peculiar facts involved in the case before it

has rejected the said application.

4) There cannot be a dispute that if the

delay is inordinate and no justifiable reasons

are assigned for occurrence of such delay, the

same cannot be condoned. The Hon'ble Apex court

in catena of judgments has however ruled that the

expression "sufficient cause" must receive

liberal interpretation. In the matter of

condonation of delay, the Courts are supposed to

adopt a justice-oriented approach. Pragmatic

view needs to be taken in considering sufficient

cause for delay so that the just cause is not

defeated.

5) In the instant case, admittedly, the

claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal

at Mumbai was filed well within period of

limitation. However, as mentioned earlier, the

same was dismissed by Mumbai Tribunal on the

ground of jurisdiction. The order was passed by

the Tribunal at Mumbai on 19th January, 2015; the

certified copy of which was received to the

Counsel for the appellants on 7th April, 2015 and

the petition before the Nagpur Bench of the

Tribunal was filed on 1st June, 2015. Considering

the facts, as above, in no case, it can be said

that the appellants were negligent in prosecuting

their claim or to say that inordinate delay has

occurred in filing the claim petition by the

appellants even if the delay is computed from the

date of occurrence of the alleged accident. From

the record it is quite clear that the appellants

were bonafide prosecuting their claim before the

Tribunal at Mumbai believing that the said Court

has jurisdiction. The Tribunal at Nagpur has lost

sight of the fact that the appellants were under

the advice of the counsel, who filed the petition

at Mumbai and no blame can be attributed on their

part for the simple reason that a layman can not

be expected to have knowledge as to which Court

will have jurisdiction to entertain and try his

claim petition.

6) Having considered the entire material on

record and more particularly, the fact that the

claim petition was filed well within the period

of limitation before Mumbai Tribunal and after

the same was dismissed by the Tribunal on the

point of jurisdiction, after receiving the

certified copy of the said judgment within the

period of less than two months, the claim

petition was filed before the Nagpur Tribunal,

the finding recorded by the Tribunal that there

was no just and sufficient cause for condoning

the delay, cannot be sustained and deserves to be

set aside. I hold that the appellants had

sufficiently explained the delay which had

occurred in filing the claim petition by them

before the Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal and the

same deserves to be condoned. In the result, the

following order, -

ORDER

I) Judgment and order dated 17th December, 2015 passed by the Railway

Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench in Claim

Application No.MA/NGP/2015/0020, is quashed and set aside;

ii) The delay caused in filing the claim petition by the appellants before the Tribunal is condoned. Consequently, the Claim Petition be registered in

accordance with law;

iii) The Tribunal is directed to decide the claim petition in accordance with law on its own merits by giving due opportunity to the parties to the claim

petition;

                       iv)             The   Appeal   stands   allowed   in 




                                                      
                       the   aforesaid   terms.     Pending   Civil 

Application, if any, stands disposed of.

sd/-

(P.R.BORA) JUDGE

bdv/