Delhi High Court
Maya vs Union Of India on 28 April, 2023
Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:2942
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 90/2018
Date of Decision: 28.04.2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
MAYA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.N.K.Gupta, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Krishna Kumar Sharma, Sr.Panel
Counsel with Mr.Pradeep Tiwari,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)
CM.APPL No.9231/2018 (delay) & CM.APPL No.9232/2018 (delay in
re-filing)
1. The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 28
days in filing the appeal.
2. Issue notice.
3. Mr.Krishna Kumar Sharma, learned Sr.Panel Counsel for the
respondent, accepts notice.
4. Appellant has stated that being married and completely dependent on
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.05.2023
13:21:21
Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:2942
her husband who is a poor labourer, she could not take steps to challenge the
impugned order on account of financial hardships. It is stated that her
family's economical condition is very bad and are living in a state of
perpetual penury.
5. In view of the above, the application is allowed and the delay of 28
days in filing the appeal and the delay of 130 days in refiling the appeal is
also condoned.
6. The applications are disposed of.
FAO 90/2018
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated
05.07.2016 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi
whereby the claim petition was dismissed only on account of delay.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant/claimant
is the married daughter of the deceased. In the application seeking
condonation of delay, it was stated that the claimant was poor and illiterate.
After the incident, the claimant could visit the police station after three
months as she had no means of transport. Further, the GRP did not provide
her with the inquest report of her father which added to the delay. The
Tribunal, however, instead of considering the claim petition on merits,
dismissed the same on account of delay.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has however, opposed the present
appeal.
4. The provisions relating to compensation under the Act which is a
piece of beneficial legislation needs to be interpreted liberally. Notably, in
Mohsina & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. reported as
MANU/DE/2465/2017, delay of 804 days in filing of the appeal was
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.05.2023
13:21:21
Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:2942
condoned by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considering the poor
economic status of the appellants/claimants. In alike facts and
circumstances, this Court in Sh. Saddam v. Union of India, reported as 2022
SCC OnLine Del 4647 condoned delay of 685 days in filing of the appeal
against the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to
determine the amount of compensation and interest to be awarded to the
appellant therein. To the similar extent is the view taken in Binda Devi v.
Union of India reported as MANU/DE/4590/2022.
5. Considering the grounds stated in the application seeking condonation
of delay, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have
proceeded to decide the claim petition on merits.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is
remanded back to the Tribunal to be listed at the first instance on
15.05.2023.
7. Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
8. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Tribunal for information.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
APRIL 28, 2023/v
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.05.2023
13:21:21
