Smt. Saroj & Ors. vs Union Of India
2014 Latest Caselaw 2637 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          FAO No.10/2014

%                                                    22nd May, 2014

SMT. SAROJ & ORS.                                   ..... Appellants
                           Through:     Mr. Ajeet Kumar, Advocate.

                           Versus

UNION OF INDIA                                      ..... Respondent
                           Through:     Mr. Rajan Sabharwal, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.            This first appeal is filed against the order of the Railway Claims

Tribunal dated 13.8.2013 whereby the Tribunal on the death of the original

claimant has not allowed substitution of the legal heirs by observing that

there is delay in filing the application and there is no provision for

condonation of delay.


2.            Nothing shows more mis-application of mind by the Tribunal

than this case because the Tribunal has not even cared to see Rule 26 proviso

of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 and which

specifically allows bringing on record the legal heirs on sufficient cause
FAO 10/2014                                                   Page 1 of 3
 being shown. Though the word condonation of delay is not written in this

proviso it is very much implicit in this proviso that it deals with condonation

of delay because otherwise there was no need to have a proviso for allowing

bringing on record the legal heirs after the period of limitation. I would also

like to note that the Tribunal is by virtue of Rule 44 vested with inherent

powers to pass orders as may be necessary for the end of justice or to

prevent the abuse of process of the Tribunal. In my opinion, if there is no

other provision directly preventing passing of an order by the Tribunal,

surely Rule 44 can always be invoked by the Tribunal to ensure that justice

is done.


3.            The Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of N.

Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy AIR 1998 SC 3222 has held that once

there is delay, there is always some negligence, however that is not

sufficient to reject the prayer for condonation of delay unless and until there

is want of good faith on behalf of the applicant. In the present case, the

appellants/applicants who are the legal heirs of the deceased claimant get no

benefit of any delay being caused in seeking their substitution. Also, the

Tribunal has not been unnecessarily harshed because the application for




FAO 10/2014                                                  Page 2 of 3
 bringing on record the legal heirs was filed within 160 days of the death of

the deceased Sh. Harphool Singh.

4.            In view of the above, appeal is allowed. Impugned order of the

Tribunal dated 13.8.2013 is set aside. The appellants who are legal heirs of the

deceased claimant Sh. Harphool Singh will stand substituted in place of the

original deceased claimant Sh. Harphool Singh. Amended memo of parties be

filed before the Tribunal on behalf of the appellants within four weeks of the

case being listed for the first time before the Tribunal pursuant to the present

judgment.

5.            A copy of this judgment be sent to the Chairman of the Railway

Claims Tribunal at Delhi for necessary information.

6.            Parties to appear before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi on 23rd

July, 2014. Parties are left to bear their own costs.



MAY 22, 2014                                   VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne