Delhi High Court
Panveshwari & Ors. vs Uoi on 9 November, 2010
Author: Mool Chand Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 214/2009
Reserved on: 02.11.2010
Decided on: 09.11.2010
PANVESHWARI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through Mr. N.K. Gupta, Adv.
Versus
UOI .... Respondents
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment? No.
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.
: MOOL CHAND GARG,J
CM No.9555/2009 (for condonation of dealy)
1. This application has been filed by the appellants for condoning
the delay of 187 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and
order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 22.08.2008
whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants as dependents of
the deceased was dismissed by holding that the the deceased de-
boarded a running train.
2. To seek condonation of delay, it has been pleaded that the
appeal could not be filed in time because the appellants were under
great sorrow and disappointment after the untimely death of the
deceased, who was the father of the appellants No.2 to 5 and the
husband of appellant No.1 and was the only bread-earner. Further,
the appellants had no source of income and did not have sufficient
money to pay the fees of their counsel for filing the present appeal. It
has been pleaded that somehow they arranged some money and the
same was paid to their counsel and thereafter the counsel prepared
the present appeal and in this process the delay of 187 days
occurred. No other ground has been pressed in service, despite
having filed a claim petition just within three months of the death of
the deceased which they lost on merits.
3. The respondent has opposed the application by filing a reply. It
has been submitted that soon after the death of the deceased, the
appellants filed a claim petition registered as OA No. 126/2007 before
Railway Claims Tribunal on 30.08.2007 i.e. just within three months of
the death of the deceased. It is stated that the very fact that they
filed a claim which they lost on merits and thereafter stating that they
could not file the appeal within limitation and delayed the filing of the
appeal for 187 days being in a state of shock cannot be accepted. It is
further submitted that if the appellants were unable to arrange fees
for their counsel they could have approached the District Court or
High Court for seeking legal aid and assistance in the matter. It has
been submitted that the delay had to be explained on day-to-day
basis and therefore, the application is without any consequence.
4. During the arguments the learned counsel for the appellant
could not justify the delay. He was only trying to harp on the merits
of the case knowing full well that on the basis of their basic pleadings
pleadings they have lost the claim on merits. They wanted to amend
their claim by pleading a new version of the incident. This attempt
only shows that the appellants want to raise new issues which they
have not raised when the original claim was filed. Death of the
deceased was not caused because of any untoward incident, but was
a result of his own negligence.
6. Having examined the record of the case and the claim petition
which they lost on merits and finding no justification for causing delay
of 187 days in approaching this Court, I find no reason to condone the
delay. Accordingly the application is dismissed.
FAO No.214/2009
In view of the orders passed in CM No.9555/2009, the appeal
stands dismissed.
MOOL CHAND GARG,J
NOVEMBER 09, 2010
ga
