Bombay High Court
Mr. Bhagwat Devidas Chaudhari And Anr vs The Union Of India Represented By The ... on 5 May, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:21688
78 FA-950-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 950 OF 2025
1. Shri. Bhagwat Devidas Chaudhari ]
Age - 53 years, residing at ]
Savda, Taluka : Raver, District : Jalgaon, ]
State : Maharashtra ]
2. Smt. Bharati Bhagwat Chaudhari ]
Age - 48 years, residing at above address. ] ...Appellants
Versus
The Union of India ]
Represented by the General Manager, ]
Central Railway, Mumbai : C.S.T. ] ...Respondent
------------
Mr. Mohan Rao for the Appellant.
Mr. T. J. Pandian, Ms. Prajakta Joshi, Mr. Noorjahan Khan, Mr. Gautam
Modanwal for Respondent.
------------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Date : 5th May, 2025.
Judgment :
1. The present First Appeal challenges the order dated 12 th August,
2014 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai rejecting the
Application for condonation of delay on the ground that no convincing
reason is given in Application for condoning the delay.
2. Learned counsel appearing for Appellant submits that the
Application clearly sets out that Applicants are illiterates and are
residents of Jalgaon. He would submit that due to death of the
deceased, the Applicants were mentally disturbed and did not have any
knowledge about the legal procedure for the purpose of claiming
Sairaj 1 of 2
78 FA-950-2025.doc
compensation. He submits that the Tribunal has failed to consider the
sufficiency of reason.
3. Per contra, Mr. Pandian, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent submits that the usual course which is adopted is to
remand the matter to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai with liberty
to Appellants to file Additional Application elaborating the
explanation for delay and the matter can be decided after sufficient
opportunity being given to both the parties.
4. Mr. Rao would agree and does not oppose the said course.
5. In light of the above, following order is passed :
[i] The First Appeal is allowed by quashing and setting aside
order dated 12th August, 2014.
[ii] Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2013 is remanded to
the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal.
[iii] The Appellants to file Additional Affidavit elaborating the
reason for delay. The Railways is permitted to file its Reply to
the Additional Affidavit.
[iv] The parties are directed to appear before the Railway
Claims Tribunal on 10th June, 2025 and apply for further
directions.
[v] The Railway Claims Tribunal is directed to consider the
matter afresh after hearing both the parties.
6. First Appeal is allowed in the above terms.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Sairaj 2 of 2
