VENKATESH ALIAS VENKATAPPA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who was the applicant in OA II(U) 135/2011 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, has filed this appeal impugning the order dated 18.04.2012 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench rejecting the appellant's application for condontion of delay under Section 17(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, and consequentially, not admitting the appellant's application in OA II(U) 135/2011 dismissing this application as being time barred.

(2.) The facts necessary for consideration of the appeal are: the appellant while traveling from Yadgiri Railway station to Narayanpet by Udyan Express train was involved in an untoward incident and because of resulting injury, he suffered amputation below knee, and therefore, presented the claim application in OA II(U)135/2011 under the provisions of Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 r/w. Sections 124-A and 125 of the Indian Railway Act, 1989. However, such application was filed beyond the period of limitation provided under Section 17(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Therefore, the appellant filed an application under Section 17(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking condonation of delay in filing the application. This application, was not accompanied by the affidavit of the appellant, but was accompanied by the affidavit of a counsel, Sri. Santosh Kumar Verma.

(3.) The Tribunal, taking note of the fact that the appellant had not filed any affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay and the affidavit filed by a counsel, concluded that the reasons assigned for the delay were flimsy and not convincing, and rejected the application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant had not filed necessary documents like journey ticket, police complaint about the untoward incident and medical records from a specialist to the police authority, and the Tribunal concluded that the reasons advanced by the counsel did not constitute sufficient reasons, but also were frivolous and far from satisfaction. Consequentially, dismissed appellant's claim application as being time barred without admitting the appellant's application.