Kerala High Court
C.A. Hamsa vs Union Of India on 8 November, 2024
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2024:KER:84766
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1946
MFA (RCT) NO. 23 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 07.08.2024 IN MA NO.2 OF
2024 OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:
C.A. HAMSA
AGED 48 YEARS
SON OF ALIKUNJU, CHERODATH, KUTTAMASSERY, ALUVA EAST
VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683105
BY ADVS.
ANIL S.RAJ
T.ABY JACOB
RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.
K.N.RAJANI
ANILA PETER
SIMI S. ALI
ARSHID.M.S.
SARITHA K.S.
BAHADUR SHAH ANAKKOT NASIRALI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL
RAILWAY, RAILWAY NILAYAM, SECUNDERABAD, TELENGANA, PIN
- 50007
MFA(RCT) No. 23 of 2024
2
2024:KER:84766
2 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, SALEM DIVISION, SALEM, PIN - 636001
3 THE DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER
SOUTHERN RAILWAYS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
4 THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER, (REFUNDS),
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE,
SECUNDERABAD, TELENGANA, PIN - 500071
5 THE GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI, PIN - 600003
6 DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM –, PIN - 695014
BY ADV MINI GOPINATH CGC
THIS MFA (RCT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MFA(RCT) No. 23 of 2024
3
2024:KER:84766
SATHISH NINAN,
&
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ.
-------------------------------------
MFA(RCT) No. 23 of 2024
---------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of November 2024
JUDGMENT
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J
This appeal is filed by the applicant in MA/ERS/02/2024
challenging the order passed therein by the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Ernakulam dismissing his application seeking condonation of delay of
474 days in filing the claim application.
2. It is the contention of the appellant that initially he had
approached the Hon'ble High Court of Madras by filing a writ petition
seeking refund of freight charges amounting to Rs.436,67,250/- and that
as per order dated 12/9/2022, the said court dismissed the writ petition
by granting liberty to the appellant to move the Railway Claims Tribunal.
The Hon'ble High court also condoned the delay for the period already
spent before that court. It is his contention that thereafter, his counsel
prepared and presented the claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal,
2024:KER:84766
Chennai and the same was not accepted and was returned stating that it
was not having territorial jurisdiction. It is further contended that
thereafter, the appellant was searching for a counsel at Ernakulam and
finally filed the claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Ernakulam with delay.
3. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents is that
the appellant has not shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay and
that even though the High Court of Madras has disposed of the writ
petition as early as on 12/9/2022, the appellant has filed the claim
petition only on 29/12/2023, after a lapse of 474 days. It is also its
contention that the appellant has not put forward any cogent reasons,
and there is gross negligence and lack of bona fide on the part of the
appellant.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The only question to be considered in this appeal is whether
the appellant has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 474
days in filing the claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal. It is
the law that while considering a delay petition, the court must take a
liberal and pragmatic approach. In the present case the appellant has
specifically contended that, after the disposal of the writ petition by the
Hon'ble High Court of Madras, he had approached the Railway Claims
2024:KER:84766
Tribunal, Chennai with a claim petition and that the same has been
returned stating that it lacks territorial jurisdiction. It is also contended
by the appellant that thereafter, he had to search for a counsel in
Ernakulam to file the claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal
at Ernakulam and that, it is because of this fact, the delay had occurred.
The reason thus stated by the appellant appears to be genuine and
bona fide and there is nothing available on record to the contrary.
Therefore, considering the reasons thus projected, the stakes involved
in the matter and the fact that the law always favour the disposal of a
case on merits, we are inclined to allow this appeal. However,
considering the extent of delay involved, the appellant shall not be
entitled for interest on the compensation amount if any ordered, for the
period covered by the delay.
In the result, this appeal is allowed as follows;
i) The order dated 7/8/2024 in MA/ERS/02/2024 passed by
the Railway Claims Tribunal,Ernakulam is set aside and MA/ERS/02/2024
is allowed .
ii) The appellant shall not be entitled for interest on the
compensation amount if any ordered, for the period covered by the
delay.
iii) Both sides are directed to appear before the Railway Claims
2024:KER:84766
Tribunal, Ernakulam on 19/12/2024.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
Judge
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
dpk Judge
