Mrs. Seema Wd/O Sanjay Pathare And ... vs Union Of India Thr. General ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15465 Bom

                                                                                          36-ia-1521-2021.doc




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                             INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1521 OF 2021
                                                              IN
                                              FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.11954 OF 2021
VISHAL
SUBHASH               Seema Sanjay Pathare and Anr.                             ...Appellants
PAREKAR                          vs.
Digitally signed by
VISHAL SUBHASH
                      Union of India                                            ...Respondent
PAREKAR
Date: 2021.10.28
17:18:26 +0530
                      Mr. V.M. More, for the Appellants/Applicants.
                      Mr. T.J. Pandian a/w. Mr. Dheer Sampat, for the Respondent.

                                                     CORAM :    N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                     DATE :     OCTOBER 27, 2021

                      P.C.:

                      .       The learned counsel for the respondent has tendered an

                      affidavit in reply. The affidavit in reply is taeen on record.



                      2.      The Interim Application is filed for condonation of delay of one

                      year and 200 days in preferring the appeal against the judgment

                      and order in O.A.No.(IIu)/MCC/0483/2013 passed by Railway

                      Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench on 28 th June, 2019 whereby the

                      claim application came to be dismissed.



                      3.      The        said     Claim   Application   was   preferred      seeeing

                      compensation on account of the death of Mr. Sanjay Anant Pathare,

                      the husband of applicant No. 1 and father of applicant No. 2 in an

                      untoward incident alleged to have occurred on 30th March, 2011.

                      Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                               ...1
                                                            36-ia-1521-2021.doc




The Tribunal was of the view that the deceased was not a bonafide

passenger and thus the claim application was dismissed.



4.      In the application, the applicants aver that the delay was

neither intentional nor deliberate. The delay occurred on account of

the situation in life of the applicants and Covid 19 pandemic, which

intervened. If the delay is not condoned the applicants would suffer

an irreparable loss.



6.      The learned counsel for respondent has resisted the

application by filing an affidavit in reply. It is disputed that the

delay is of one year and 200 days only. On the contrary, according

to the respondent, there is delay of 615 days in preferring the

appeal. The reasons assigned in the application are also stated to be

not justifiable. No sufficient cause to exercise the discretion to

condone the delay is made out.



7.      I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the

respondent.



8.      The applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are the widow and daughter of the

deceased, respectively. On account of the death of the deceased, the


Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                      ...2
                                                              36-ia-1521-2021.doc




applicants found themselves in an adverse situation. In the

application there are reasons assigned for the delay in preferring

the appeal. It is true that the impugned order was passed on 28 th

June, 2019 and the appellants were at liberty to prefer an appeal

before the commencement of Covid 19 pandemic. However, the

adverse situation in life, in which the applicants found themselves

on account of the death of the bread earner in the family, cannot be

lost sight of. There does not appear to be an intentional delay for

want of bonafide. On the contrary, the adverse conditions and poor

financial position seem to be primary reason for not preferring the

appeal within the stipulated period. Thus the application deserves

to be allowed to advance the cause of substantive justice.

        Hence, the following order.



                                 ORDER

1] The application stands allowed.

2] The delay in preferring appeal stands condoned.

3]      Appeal be registered.

4]      The application stands disposed of.



                                              (N. J. JAMADAR, J.)




Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                        ...3