Rajasthan High Court
Smt Bali Devi vs Union Of India Thr Gen Manager Wcr ... on 4 July, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4537/2017
Smt. Bali Bai W/o Late Shri Durgalal, R/o Near Ramdev Temple,
Gram Alod, Tehsil Ramganjmandi, District Kota Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Union Of India Through The General Manager, West
Central Railway, Jabalpur M.p.
2. Master Shobharam S/o Late Shri Durgalal, R/o Near
Ramdev Temple, Gram Alod, Tehsil Ramganjmandi,
District Kota Rajasthan.
3. Master Lokesh S/o Late Shri Durgalal, R/o Near Ramdev
Temple, Gram Alod, Tehsil Ramganjmandi, District Kota
Rajasthan.
4. Master Bharat S/o Late Shri Durgalal, R/o Near Ramdev
Temple, Gram Alod, Tehsil Ramganjmandi, District Kota
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Arpit Baheti for
Mr. Ajay Shukla
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
04/07/2022
The instant appeal has been submitted against the impugned
judgment and order dated 05.06.2017 passed by Railway Claims
Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal') whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant-
claimant has been dismissed on the ground of delay of 957 days.
Counsel for the appellant submits that only on the ground of
delay the claim petition has been dismissed. Counsel further
(2 of 3) [CMA-4537/2017]
submits that the appellant was not aware about the procedure of
filing the claim petition, hence, delay has occurred and the
Tribunal should have condoned the delay instead of rejecting the
claim petition on the technical ground of delay.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that
no explanation has been given by the appellant for the inordinate
delay of 957 days in filing the claim petition. Counsel for the
respondents further submits that no illegality has been committed
by the Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the judgment
dated 05.06.2017.
It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 14.03.2012,
while the claim petition was filed after inordinate delay of 957
days without giving any reasonable explanation in filing the claim
petition. The sole reason mentioned in the application was that the
appellant was not aware about the procedure of filing the claim
petition with regard to the alleged incident.
Ignorance of law and procedure is not an excuse. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding SLP Nos.6609-6613 of 2014
in Brijesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana reported in SCC
2014 Vol. 11, page 351, has held as under:-
"11. The Courts should not adopt an injustice-
oriented approach in rejecting the application for
condonation of delay. However, the Court while
allowing such application has to draw a distinction
between delay and inordinate delay for want of
bonafides of an inaction or negligence would deprive
a party of the protection of Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963. Sufficient cause is a condition precedent
for exercise of discretion by the Court for condoning
the delay. This Court has time and again held that
when mandatory provision is not complied with and
that delay is not properly, satisfactory and
convincingly explained, the Court cannot condone the
delay on sympathetic grounds alone."
(3 of 3) [CMA-4537/2017]
In the considered opinion of this Court, no sufficient cause
has been shown to explain the delay of 957 days. Hence, the
Tribunal has not committed any illegality in rejecting the claim
petition.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.
All pending applications, if any stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
HEENA GANDHI/68
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
