Telangana High Court

Thati , Tati Krishnaveni vs The Union Of India on 22 January, 2024

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

          CIVIL MICELLANESOUS APPEAL No.184 of 2023


 JUDGMENT

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the

order dated 12.01.2023 passed in M.A.No.10 of 2022 in

DDR.No.64 of 2022 by the Railway Claims Tribunal,

Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short 'Tribunal'),

wherein, the Tribunal dismissed said application filed by the

appellants to condone the delay of 2545 days in filing the claim

petition.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of M.A.No.10 of 2022 in

DDR.No.64 of 2022, it is stated that the husband of appellant

No.1 herein (deceased) along with his two friends viz.,

Balkishan and Rankumar, had purchased a common journey

ticket on 02.08.2014 vide PNR.No.4265156234, in train

No.11206, NZB, LTT express train, for the journey dated

03.08.2014 at 23.15 hours from Nizamabad to go to Mumbai;

that deceased was working in a private Manganese factory at

Jamadapur and surrounding villages and the head office of the

said mining factory is situated at Mumbai and thus, the

deceased had to travel Mumbai on his official work and his

friends accompanied him for their personal work.

3. It is further stated that on 03.08.2014, the deceased along

with his two friends boarded train for onward journey to

Mumbai and thereafter, as the deceased could not appear on

his bed, his two friends searched for him and enquired about

him. On enquiry, the ticket collector informed them that one

passenger fallen down from the same train near Raipur village,

within the territorial limits of Partur Police Station and

immediately, they got down from the train in the next station

and went to Partur Police Station and they came to know that

on 04.08.2014, at about 03.30 to 04.00 hours, the deceased

accidentally fallen down from the running train and

immediately he was shifted to one Deepak Hospital, Jalna for

treatment and therefore, they rushed to Jalna. The deceased

has taken treatment for about three days at Jalna Hospital and

then he was referred to Sigma Hospital Aurangabad and

admitted as inpatient, however, he succumbed to injures on

25.08.2014.

4. It is further stated that due to sudden death of her

husband, appellant No.1 was under shock and suffered with

neurological problems and she had been taking treatment since

2014 in various hospitals; that she belong to poor family and

had spent more than Rs.10,00,000/- for treatment of her

husband, who is the bread winner of their family and due his

death, they have been facing extreme financial problems. It is

also stated that because of her health problems, particularly

mental depression and neurological problems as well as

extreme financial problems, she could not approach the

Tribunal within time for filing the claim petition and further,

due to illiteracy and ignorance, they were not aware of filing

claim petition before the Tribunal and thus, prayed to condone

the delay of 2545 days for filing the claim petition.

5. The respondent has filed counter affidavit denying the

allegations of the appellants. The respondent disputed and

denied that the deceased boarded the train No.11206 for

onward journey to Mumbai along with his two friends; that he

fell down from the train at Raipur village; that he was shifted to

Deepak Hospital Jalna for treatment and then referred to Sigma

Hospital Aurangabad and that he expired on 25.08.2014. It also

denied that appellant No.1 was under shock and suffered

health problems, for that she had been taking treatment in

various hospitals, due to which, she could not approach the

Tribunal within time for filing the claim petition and that they

were unaware of time for filing claim petition. It is specifically

stated that the appellants have not filed any document in

support of their contentions and further, they failed to explain

day to day delay in not filing the claim petition within time.

6. Heard Mr.S.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the

appellants and Mr. Krishna Kishore Kovvuri, learned counsel

for the respondent.

7. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that

appellant No.1 is an illiterate and not aware of filing of the

claim petition and that due to sudden shock and neurological

problems due to death of her husband, she could not approach

the Tribunal within time. Though the appellants filed

documents evidencing her treatment in various hospitals for

the years 2015 to 2022, the Tribunal had erroneously

dismissed the application filed to condone the delay.

8. He further contended that the Tribunal, vide its order

dated 04.01.2023, in M.A.No.13 of 2022 in D.D.R.No.85 of

2022, had condoned the delay of 1647 days in filing the claim

petition; that the same Tribunal in another case, vide its order

dated 12.08.2021, in M.A.No.11 of 2021 in D.D.R.No.28 of

2021, had condoned the delay of 2225 days in filing the claim

petition. He also contended that this Court vide its order

11.10.2018, in C.M.A.No.370 of 2014, had condoned the delay

of 2757 days in filing the claim petition and in similar facts, in

another case, this Court vide its order dated 12.10.2011, in

C.M.A.No.5900 of 2010, had condoned the delay of 2578 days

in filing the claim application .

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would

contend that the appellants failed to explain abnormal delay of

2545 days in filing claim petition. He further submitted that the

Tribunal, based on the materials placed on record with regard

to medical treatment and other contentions raised by the

appellants, had rightly dismissed the application and the same

does not warrant any interference by this Court.

Consideration:

10. The point for consideration is whether the appellants

made out any case to interfere with the order dated 12.01.2023

passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissing the

application filed to condone the delay.

11. As could be seen from the material placed on record, the

husband of appellant No.1 travelled in train No.11206 on

03.08.2014; that he fallen down from the train, shifted to one

Deepak Hospital, Jalna and then shifted to Sigma hospital and

later expired on 25.08.2014. The Tribunal observed that being a

beneficial legislation, a lot of leeway has been given to the

applicants, who are generally illiterate, financially poor, suffer

from ill-health and who are unable to understand the working

of the system and thus most times delay has been condoned.

However, in this case, appellant No.1 is not financially weak as

could be seen from medical records that she underwent

treatment in various corporate hospitals and also does not

appear to be illiterate and finally, dismissed the application

with an observation that the respondent would not be able to

get the documents at this belated stage as the records would be

destroyed after a specific period of preservation date and it

would become difficult for the respondent to produce any

witness from their side since most may have retired and got

transferred etc.

12. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the appellants in

support of M.A.No.10 of 2022 in D.D.R.No.64 of 2022, it

appears that appellant No.1 was under shock and had to take

treatment for depression and neurological problems, which

occurred due to sudden death of her husband and medical

records of various hospitals were also placed on record, which

is evident from the paragraph No.5 of the impugned order dated

12.01.2023. It is specifically contended that appellant No.1 is

an illiterate and not aware of the procedure and time limit for

filing claim petition before the Tribunal. Further, nothing has

been placed on record by the respondent to dispute the

contentions of the appellants except saying that applicant failed

to explain abnormal delay of 2545 days in filing the claim

petition before the Tribunal.

13. As rightly observed by the Tribunal in paragraph No. 6 of

the Tribunal that the Railway Act, 1989 being beneficial

legislation and taking into consideration the illiteracy, ill-

health, a lot of leeway has been given to the applicants and

thus most times delay has been condoned. However, in the

present case, the Tribunal has taken different view only on the

ground that the respondent would not be able to get the

documents at this belated stage as the records would be

destroyed after a specific period of preservation date and it

would be difficult for the respondent to produce any witness

from their side since most may have retired, got transferred

etc.,

14. In considered opinion of this Court said reason given by

the Tribunal is unsustainable and the same cannot be basis for

dismissal of the application and thereby, rejecting the claim

petition at threshold without going into the merits, may result

in injustice to appellant No.1, who had already suffered

financially, neurologically and other health problems on

account of sudden death of her husband.

15. Further, the same bench has passed orders condoning the

delay of 1647 and 2225 days in M.A.No.13 of 2022 in

D.D.R.No.85 of 2022 and M.A.No.11 of 2021 in D.D.R.No.28 of

2021 respectively.

16. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the

following decisions in support of contentions of the appellants:

(i) The learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of

Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the

State of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of Mariyamma and other

Vs. Union of India, represented by the General Manager,

South Central Railway, Secunderabad in C.M.A.No.370 of

2014, dated 11.10.2018, condoned the delay of 2757 days in

filing the claim petition with an observation that the Railway

Act, 1989, is a beneficial legislation;

(ii) The learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High

Court, in the case of Union of India, represented by General

Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Vs.

Mekanthoti Mohand Rao and others in C.R.P.No.5900 of

2010, dated 12.10.2011, condoned the delay of 2578 days in

filing the claim petition observing that delay in filing the

application was not deliberate or wanton and there was no

negligence;

(iii) The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court, in the

case of M.Suseela Vs. Union of India reported in 2012

LawSuit (Mad) 587 dated 15.06.2012, condoned the delay of

2136 days in filing claim application by observing that refusal

to condone the delay should not result in closing the doors of

justice to real seekers of justice and that length of time is not

criteria but the substance matters and that meritorious case

shall not be denied adjudication on account of any technical

plea or procedural wrangles;

(iv) The High Court of Bomay in the case of Sulochana Vs.

Union of India, through General Manager, South East

Central railway, Bilaspur, condoned the delay of 567 days in

filing the claim petition observing the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Manoharan Vs. Sivarajan - 2014 4

SCC 163 that the purpose of the provision of limitation is not to

destroy the rights and that the primary function of the Court is

to adjudicate disputes between the parties and to advance

substantial justice. It is further observed that when the matters

of compensation under the aforesaid Act arise, it is public

money that is ultimately involved. Therefore, in order to address

the said concern, it would be appropriate to hold that while the

delay in filing the claim application deserved to be condoned

and the appellant ought not to be permitted to enjoy interest on

amount of compensation for the period of delay, in the event,

the claim application is decided in her favour by the Tribunal.