GARGIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by appellants against judgment dated 30th May, 2008 of Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi (for short as Tribunal) vide impugned judgment application under Section 17 (2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act (or short as, Act) filed by the appellants was dismissed.

(2.) Appellants have filed claim petition for compensation against respondent on account of death of Late Kallu, who died in an untoward train accident on 18th July, 2006. Along with it, application for condonation of delay was also Filed, in which it is stated, that appellants were under deep sorrow due to untimely death of husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 to 6. Appellant No.l and father of appellant Nos. 2 to 6. Appellant No.l visited GRP, Faridabad number of times to know about preparation of the inquest report but they did not give any satisfactory reply. After numerous visits, police of GRP/ Faridabad supplied few documents on 18th June, 2007.

(3.) Thereafter, appellant No.l, approached an Advocate Mr. Sanjay Adhana at District Court, Faridabad and handed over all documents which were demanded by him. That Advocate told her that he has prepared the case and got the signatures of appellant No.l, on various documents and stated that he will file the case within one year. He further told appellants, that they need not come and he will inform them about the progress of the case. However, that Advocate never informed appellants about progress of the case. On 20th February, 2008, appellant No.1 demanded the case number and next date of hearing from her Counsel but he refused to give the same. Thereafter, appellant No.1 demanded her file and said Advocate supplied few documents. After this, appellants contacted the present Counsel who filed the present petition. There is a delay of eight months and three days in filing of this petition. This delay is neither deliberate nor intentional, rather it is due to the reason stated above. Appellants would suffer irreparable loss if delay is not condoned, especially when rights and interest of minor appellants are involved.