S APPANNA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER S E RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the petitioner - claimant in O.A.No.33 of 1993 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad. The petitioner met with a railway accident on 08-11-1987 while working as Constable in Railway Protection Force and attending to escort duty. His right leg was amputated upto the knee joint after prolonged treatment at Visakhapatnam and others places. According to the petitioner, the Railway Department took up his cause and moved the file to get compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act and after a few years, the Department came to know that since the petitioner did not come within the definition of 'workman', he is not entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.Therefore, steps were taken to make a claim under Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Since no action was taken at the end of the Railway Administration regarding payment of compensation, the petitioner issued a legal notice on 04-11-1992 and he received reply on 31-11-1992 informing that he will not come under the category of 'workman'. Later, on 28-03-1993 the petitioner approached the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for the permanent disability suffered by him. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the petition by observing that the pendency of the proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, could not have prevented the petitioner from approaching the Railway Claims Tribunal for compensation for the injuries sustained by him and there was lack of diligence on the part of the applicant virtually amounting to negligence.There is no explanation as to why he delayed filing of application before the Tribunal for more than four months after he came to know that he was not eligible to get compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Since the applicant failed to show cause for not filing the application within the prescribed period of limitation, the application for condonation of delay was rejected. The point for consideration is whether the delay caused in making the application can be condoned?

(2.) Under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act'), an application has to be made in the prescribed form before the Railway Claims Tribunal for compensation. Section 17 of the Act prescribes limitation. Section 17(1) (b) reads as follows:

(3.) As seen from the wording of proviso (2), there is no statutory bar for the Railway Claims Tribunal to entertain the application for compensation after the period specified in sub-section (1) if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner became unconscious and he was shifted to the hospital.He underwent treatment for a considerable period and he was fit to attend his duty on 05-08-1988.After reporting to duty on medical examination, the Railway authorities found him not fit for discharging the duties of a Constable of Railway Protection Force. Therefore, he was provided with alternative employment of last grade service in the Railway Department.