BHATERI & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 5th March, 2014 whereby the Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the appellants' application for compensation on the ground of inordinate delay.

(2.) The appellants filed an application for compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal on 21 st January, 2013 claiming compensation on the ground that late Jagbir left Delhi Railway Station for Indore on 6th April, 2005 and he died as a result of a railway accident at Tarana Railway Station, District Ujjain (M.P.) on 8th April, 2005. According to the appellants, the deceased slipped from Sabarmati Express as a result of sudden movement/jerks of the train. The appellants received the intimation about the accident from Railway Police on 24th May, 2005. The police registered DD No.6/05 at Maxi Police Force (GRP), District Ujjain (M.P.) and the post-mortem was conducted at the Government Hospital. The appellants filed an application for condonation of delay along with the application for compensation on the ground that the relevant documents like death certificate, medical etc. were with the brother-in-law of appellant No.1 who did not handover the same to appellant No.1 till 2011 and appellant No.1 was in the state of shock and she lost control of her mental balance and remained sick and was under medical treatment. Appellant No.1 also claimed ignorance of the procedure for claiming compensation on the ground of illiteracy and poverty.

(3.) The Railway Claims Tribunal held that the delay of more than six years has not been sufficiently explained. The Railway Claims Tribunal observed that nothing has been placed on record to support the appellants' claim of the relevant documents being with the brother-in-law and even the name of brother-in-law was not disclosed. The appellants claim to have received the documents from the brother-in-law in 2011 but no reason or explanation has been given for not filing the application till January 2013. The Railway Claims Tribunal did not believe the appellants claim of being under shock and grief for more than six years. The Claims Tribunal further observed that the plea of illiteracy and poverty could have help the appellants to explain delay for a reasonable length of time but not a delay which is more than six and half years. The Claims Tribunal was not satisfied that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay.