Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Geeta Devi vs Union Of India on 4 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 508 of 2018
........
Smt. Geeta Devi .... ..... Appellant
Versus
Union of India .... ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
............
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mrs. Neeta Krishna, Adv.
The matter is being taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for
the parties have no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video
qualities are good.
........
08/04.05.2023.
Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha
and learned counsel for the respondent, Mrs. Neeta Krishna.
The appellant - Smt. Geeta Devi, wife of Late Indrasan Singh,
resident of At-Gordadih, P.O. + P.S. - Mohamad Ganj, District -
Palamau (Jharkhand) has preferred this miscellaneous appeal for
enhancement of the award dated 13.03.2013 passed by learned
Member (Technical) Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi
in Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/2010/0140 [Old No. OA(IIU)-8016/08] on
the ground that the learned Tribunal has not considered interest on the
awarded amount of Rs. 4 lakhs from the date of filing of the claim
application, rather it has been directed that if the amount is not released
by the respondent within two months from the date of pronouncement
of the decree, it will carry an interest of 9% from the date of the
judgment, till actual payment made.
Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha has
submitted, that it was incumbent upon the learned Tribunal to grant
interest from the date of application or reason must be assigned for not
granting interest from the date of application but the learned Tribunal
has granted interest after 60 days from the date of pronouncement of
the decree, which is fit to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha has
further submitted, that the award of Rs. 4 lakhs has already been
indemnified within 60 days from the date of award dated 13.03.2013
and miscellaneous appeal has been preferred with an application
bearing I.A. No. 7699/2018 for condonation of delay of 1900 days.
Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the principles
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Subbarayudu &
Others Vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) reported in
(2017) 12 SCC 840 and has submitted, that Para-9 & 11 of the
judgment may profitably be quoted hereunder:-
9. The High Court dismissed the claimants' appeal mainly on
the ground of delay of 3671 days in filing the appeal. On perusal
of records, it is seen that the appellants have explained the reason
for the delay in filing the appeal stating that they have entrusted
the relevant papers to their co-villager, namely, Pullaiah who is
well-conversant with the court proceedings and the said Pullaiah
has also taken steps to engage an advocate at Hyderabad and the
said Pullaiah informed that the appeal was filed and left for
Kuwait to eke out his livelihood. Thus the appellant claimants
were under the impression that the appeal has been filed. The
claimants have further stated that when they inquired the said
Pullaiah, he informed them that he went to the house of Sri
Jaganmohan Raju, Advocate and he learnt that the said Advocate
is no more and expired in 2012 itself and on enquiry with the clerk
of the said advocate, he learnt that no appeal has been filed and
this has caused a delay of 3671 days in filing the appeal. The High
Court rejected the explanation given by the appellants on the
ground that there are contradictions between the affidavit filed by
the said Pullaiah and the stand of the claimants and being not
satisfied with the reason for the delay of 3671 days in preferring
the appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
11. The term "sufficient cause" is to receive liberal
construction so as to advance substantial justice, when no
negligence, inaction or want of bona fides is attributable to the
appellants, the Court should adopt a justice-oriented approach in
condoning the delay. In State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO (2005) 3
SCC 752: 2005 SCC (Cri) 906, it was held as under:-
"8. ..... Section 5 is to be construed liberally so as to do
substantial justice to the parties. The provision
contemplates that the court has to go in the position of the
person concerned and to find out if the delay can be said to
have resulted from the cause which he had adduced and
whether the cause can be recorded in the peculiar
circumstances of the case as sufficient".
Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted, that the
delay may be condoned and interest may be granted from the date of
filing of the application, as no reason has been assigned.
Upon which, learned counsel for the respondent, Mrs. Neeta
Krishna has submitted, that the judgment relied by the learned counsel
for the appellant is not applicable in the present case, as that relates to
the land acquisition matter, where a person looses his agricultural land,
but here is the case under Railway Claims Tribunal Act. It is a
benevolent legislation, where litigants are being given benefit, as they
lost their bread-earner, but they cannot be given benefit to linger the
litigation and as such, the delay may not be condoned.
Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted, that it
is a frivolous litigation preferred by the claimant after taking the
amount as awarded by the learned Tribunal and the claimant has
waited till 1900 days and thereafter for interest @ 7.5% per month
from the date of filing of the application, in view of the judgment of
Dharampal and Sons Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
reported in 2008 (12) SCC 208, the present appeal has been preferred
with limitation application.
Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted, that
no protest was filed at the time of receiving the award, as such, this
miscellaneous appeal may be dismissed with heavy cost.
Considering the rival submission of the parties, it appears that
the judgment filed by the appellant is not applicable in the present case
that too in Railway Claims Tribunal matter, where the award has
already been indemnified within 60 days of the award and no protest
was made, but only to have a litigation and interest on the awarded
amount @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
application, present appeal has been preferred, as such, the delay
cannot be entertained.
Though the Court has power to condone the delay, but that
depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present
case, the claimant has happily accepted the award and received the
fruits of the award without any protest, but after 1900 days (appox. 5
years & 3 months) preferring such appeal is lingering the litigation,
which is never the spirit of condonation of delay, rather delay has to be
condoned for substantial justice, but not to misuse the privilege under
law.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit. The condonation
application bearing I.A. No. 7699/2018 is hereby rejected.
Consequently, the miscellaneous appeal is dismissed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil/-
