Delhi High Court
Shri Mahipal Singh & Anr. vs Union Of India on 9 July, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 147/2013
% 9th July, 2014
SHRI MAHIPAL SINGH & ANR. ......Appellants
Through: Mr. Pawan K. Bahl, Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. A.S. Dateer, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.4811/2013 (condonation of delay)
1. There is a delay of 436 days in filing of the appeal and one of
the reasons is that the earlier Advocate Sh. S.P. Singh who had the file had
expired. No doubt, the death of the Advocate is after sometime after passing
the judgment however that would be one relevant circumstance for
condonation of delay. Also, the substantial amount of time taken causing
delay is on account of death of the Advocate because the impugned
judgment is dated 30.9.2011 and the Advocate died in June, 2012.
2. Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of N. Balakrishnan
FAO No.147/2013 Page 1 of 3
Vs. M. Krishnamurthy AIR 1998 SC 3222 has held that Courts should be
liberal in condoning the delay if there is no want of good faith or gross
negligence. In the present case, appellant would have no benefit from
unnecessary delay in filing of the appeal and therefore for the reasons stated
in the application, delay of 436 days in filing the appeal is condoned subject
to payment of costs of Rs.2,500/- to the respondent.
C.M. stands disposed of.
+ FAO No.147/2013
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that one of the main
reasons for dismissal of the claim petition is that the appellant did not
summon for giving evidence one Sh. Laxmi Kant who was an eye witness
and who had given his statement to the police as per document Ex.AW1/10.
Counsel for the appellant prays that one opportunity be given to the
appellant to summon Sh. Laxmi Kant for giving his evidence and also for
the respondent to cross-examine him thereafter.
4. Considering that death has taken place and statutory
compensation is provided for death under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,
1987, and also considering that the statement of Sh. Laxmi Kant is almost
contemporaneous to the happening of the incident and death of Sh. Yashveer
because the statement has been made by Sh. Laxmi Kant on 6.3.2010 itself
FAO No.147/2013 Page 2 of 3
when the untoward incident happened, I consider the prayer made by the
appellant as reasonable.
5. In view of the above, the impugned judgment dated 13.9.2011
is set aside and the appellant is granted an opportunity to lead evidence only
of Sh. Laxmi Kant before the Railway Claims Tribunal. The matter is
therefore remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal for a fresh decision after
the appellant summons and gets the evidence of Mr. Laxmi Kant recorded.
6. Parties to appear before the Railway Claims Tribunal on 27th
August, 2014 and the Railway Claims Tribunal will now decide the case
afresh after evidence is led of Sh. Laxmi Kant.
7. Appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations, leaving
the parties to bear their own costs.
JULY 09, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
