Shanti Devi & Ors. vs Union Of India
2013 Latest Caselaw 4678 Del

*                    HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                            F.A.O. No.456 of 2012

                                    Decided on : 8th October, 2013

SHANTI DEVI & ORS.                                 ...... Appellants
              Through:            Mr. Gurmit Singh Hans, Advocate.

                         Versus

UNION OF INDIA                                       ...... Respondent

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

C.M. No.19079/2012 (for delay)

1. This is an application seeking condonation of 1045 days delay in

filing the appeal.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have also

gone through the record. The appellant had filed a claim petition being

O.A. No.65/2007 before the Railway Claims Tribunal on account of

death of one Nagesh Kumar Sharma, s/o Ram Parkash Sharma and Shanti

Devi (appellant No.1) and father of appellant Nos.2 and 3. The petition

was filed in the year 2007 and dismissed on 28.8.2009.

3. The present appeal has been filed in the year 2013, that is, after a

delay of more than three years. The ground which has been set out in the

application seeking condonation of delay and the supporting affidavit is

that the appellant No.1, Shanti Devi (mother) had gone to her native place

as appellant Nos.2 and 3, whose father had died, had also lost their

mother earlier. It was stated in the affidavit that another son of the

appellant No.1, Ashok Kumar, was following up the matter with the

counsel, however, he could not come to Delhi between August, 2012 to

June, 2012 and, therefore, this resulted in delay. It has been stated in the

affidavit since the provisions of grant of compensation under the Railway

Claims Tribunal are beneficial legislation, therefore, delay may be

condoned.

4. Normally speaking, the delay would have been condoned in case a

reasonable explanation is given but here is a case where a party has slept

over her rights for more than three years without any cogent explanation

about the considerable delay. Simply going to the native place and

stating that her other son was in touch with the counsel and could not

come to Delhi for three years, is not a ground in itself to condone the

delay. The non-coming of Ashok Kumar to Delhi for a period of three

years clearly shows that they were not serious in pursuing the matter.

Had they been serious, they would have immediately come to contact

their counsel in Delhi and filed the appeal. In case such callous attitude

of the litigant is condoned, it will result in an unending spate of litigation

where there will be no end.

5. In my considered opinion, the explanation given by the learned

counsel for the appellants does not constitute 'sufficient cause'.

Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the

appeal is dismissed

6. Since the application for condonation of delay is dismissed, the

appeal is dismissed as time barred.

V.K. SHALI, J.

OCTOBER 08, 2013 'AA'