2016 (9) TMI 1632 - HC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay of about four and half years - whether the delay so caused is sufficiently explained by the appellants and whether the grounds assigned by the appellants for occurrence of such delay can be accepted to be just and sufficient? - HELD THAT - There cannot be a dispute about the proposition which has been upheld by the Honourable Apex Court in several judgments that a huge delay also can be condoned if justifiable reasons are assigned for occurrence of such delay and, at the same time, if no proper reasons are assigned, the delay of even few days cannot be condoned. In the instant case, as has been observed by the learned Tribunal, the claimants had prayed for condonation of delay putting forth the grounds of illiteracy, poverty and lack of communication between them and their Advocate. It is also the case of the claimants that they did face lot of difficulties in collecting necessary Police papers and getting them translated for the purpose of filing the petition before the Tribunal. All of such grounds are rejected by the Tribunal. The material on record shows that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and valid Railway ticket was found in his pocket at the time of inquest panchnama prepared by the Police machinery. Prima facie material is also there on record showing that the deceased suffered death in an untoward incident. When there is a prima facie merit in the application or appeal, the Courts or the Tribunals shall not shut the doors of justice only on the technical ground of limitation. Delay in respect of such cases has to be liberally condoned where there is a prima facie merit in the case brought out before the Court or the Tribunal. Substantial justice must be the criteria in disposing of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and liberal view has to be taken so as to advance substantial justice. Having considered the material on record evidencing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that there is reason to believe that he suffered death in an untoward incident, the delay caused in filing the application deserves to be condoned - Application allowed.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Technical approach of Tribunal

Delay in filing appeal:
The appellants filed an appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, which dismissed the Claim Petition due to delay. The appellants explained the delay by stating that they were not aware of legal provisions and lacked appropriate advice, leading to a delay of four years in filing the claim petition. They argued that the delay should be condoned considering their lack of knowledge and the fact that they come from a poor background. The appellants relied on a judgment of the Delhi High Court to support their argument that the delay should be condoned.

Condonation of delay:
The Tribunal rejected the appellants' application seeking condonation of delay, stating that the reasons provided were not properly explained and were not supported by necessary particulars. The Tribunal observed that false statements were made in the application for condonation of delay. However, the High Court noted that the delay was not deliberate or intentional, and the appellants faced difficulties in collecting necessary documents and translating them for filing the petition. The High Court criticized the Tribunal for adopting a hyper-technical approach and failing to appreciate the challenges faced by the claimants. The High Court emphasized that in cases involving illiterate or poor individuals, a more humane approach should be taken, and justice should not be denied based solely on technicalities.

Technical approach of Tribunal:
The High Court criticized the Tribunal for failing to consider the difficulties faced by the claimants and for not adopting a more lenient and humane approach in dealing with the case. The High Court emphasized that in matters involving compensation for victims of accidents, a justice-oriented approach should be taken, and delay should be liberally condoned when there is prima facie merit in the case. The High Court quashed the impugned judgment and order, condoned the delay in filing the claim application, and directed the Tribunal to consider the Claim Application on its own merits. The High Court highlighted the importance of advancing substantial justice and taking a liberal view in such cases.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned judgment and order, condoned the delay in filing the claim application, and directed the Tribunal to consider the Claim Application on its own merits. The High Court emphasized the need for a more humane and lenient approach in cases involving illiterate or poor individuals and stressed the importance of advancing substantial justice in such matters.