Bombay High Court
Yogesh S/O Baburao Deshmukh vs The Union Of India, Through Its General ... on 21 December, 2023
2023:BHC-NAG:17671
1 fa771.2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.771/2023
Yogesh S/o Baburao Deshmukh,
aged 37 Yrs., Occ. Nil,
R/o Akruti Nagar, Malkapur,
Dist. Akola (M.S.) 444 001. ... Appellant
- Versus -
The Union of India,
through its General Manager,
Central Railway, C.S.M.T. (Mumbai) ... Respondent
-----------------
Ms. Sumesha Choudhari, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Neerja G. Chaubey, Advocate for the Respondent.
----------------
CORAM :- MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT :- 8.11.2023
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT :- 21.12.2023
JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Railway
Claims Tribunal rejecting the application for condonation of
delay in filling the claim petition the claimant has filed this appeal
before this Court.
2. The claimant had filed the application for
condonation of delay of 2410 days in filing the claim petition
before the Railway Claims Tribunal. The incident took place on
2 fa771.2023
17.2.2013 and claimant has filed the claim petition along with
application for condonation of delay on 7.9.2022 after a period of
2410 days.
3. The reason given by the claimant is that the claimant
was in shock after the incident and it took time to collect
documents from the police. Moreover, due to accident he became
disable person. He has further stated that he came to know in the
month of October 2016 about provisions for compensation. He
was informed that the claim petition is required to be filed within
one year from the date of incident. As already three years were
passed he has left thought of filing of the claim petition at that
time. As he was not aware about the procedure and due to
illiteracy there is delay which is not deliberate hence prayed to
condone it.
4. The application was opposed by the respondent
Railway stating that the reasons given are not convincing and
reasonable as day to day delay is not explained. The claimant
cannot get benefit of his own wrong. No documentary evidence
is filed on record for the reasons given for delay. Though the
3 fa771.2023
claimant was having knowledge about the claim in the year 2016
no steps are taken by him. He had not approached the Advocate
even after receiving the phone number of Advocate for
approaching the Tribunal, he had not taken any steps till 2018.
Hence prayed to reject the application.
5. By relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
the Tribunal has rejected the application stating that the
inordinate delay cannot be condoned without sufficient ground.
6. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
7. The incident took place on 17.2.2013 and the
petitioner filed the claim petition along with application for
condonation of delay on 7.9.2022 i.e. after 2410 days. The
period of pandemic though considered, there is delay of more
than six years which is not properly explained. The reason given
by the claimant for delay that he was not aware about the relief
cannot be considered. In the year 2016 he came to know about
the remedy of claiming compensation but thereafter he has not
taken any steps to contact the Advocate. Even in 2018 he came
to know about the name of Advocate who used to practice before
4 fa771.2023
the Tribunal still he had not taken any steps. The claimant slept
over his legal right for a period of 8 years. The applicant relied on
judgment in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee V/s Managing
Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others reported
in (2013) 12 S.C.C. 649 the principles are laid down in said
judgment while considering the delay application. The relevant
principles are as follows:-
"(i) .....
(ii) .....
(iii) .....
(iv) .....
(v) .....
(vi) .....
(vii) The concept of liberal approach has to
encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it
cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.
(viii) There is a distinction between inordinate
delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for
to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted
whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That
apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas
the second calls for a liberal delineation.
(ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a
party relating to its inaction or negligence are
relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is
so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are
required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in
5 fa771.2023
respect of both parties and the said principle cannot
be given a total go by in the name of liberal
approach.
(x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the
grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the
courts should be vigilant not to expose the other
side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.
(xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets
away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation
by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of
limitation.
(xii) .....
(xiii) .....
(xiv) .....
(xv) An application for condonation of delay
should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the
base of individual philosophy which is basically
subjective.
(xvi) .....
(xvii) ....."
8. Considering the principles (vii) (ix) the conduct and
attitude of party is also required to be considered. Here in the
case in hand the applicant had showed a very casual approach.
Though he was suffering from disability has not taken any efforts
even after he came to know about the remedy. No documents are
6 fa771.2023
filed on record. Considering the ratio laid down in the case of
Nishant S/ Deorao Wasnik V/s. Union of India reported in 2022
(6) Mh.L.J. 160 it is held that if the explanation given by the
applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent
in prosecuting his cause then it would be a legitimate excuse or
discretion not to condone the delay. From the reasons given by
the applicant it is clear that "sufficient cause" is not made out in
this case. The Tribunal has rightly considered that as no
acceptable reasons for condoning the inordinate delay of 2410
days in filing the claim petition are given, the delay cannot be
condoned in routine manner. The casual approach of the
applicant towards his legal right cannot be considered while
condoning the delay. Hence the appeal stands dismissed with no
orders as to costs.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 02/01/2024 17:05:34
