SANTOSH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS and the other connected appeals (Miscellanceous Appeal Nos. 272 of 1982 Surajkali v. Union of India, 273 of 1982 Dilip Kumar v. Union of India, 275 of 1982 Ashok Kumar v. Union of India and 276 of 1982 Kumari Sarla v. Union of India) which are all being disposed of by this order, are filed under Section 82-F (2) of the Indian Railways Act against orders whereby the appellants' claim has been dismissed by the Ad hoc Claims Commissioner, Railway Accident, Bilaspur, as barred by limitation.

(2.) ON 16. 7. 1981, railway accident took place as a result of which Surajbhan travelling in the train died and his minor sons and wife sustained injuries. By notification, dated 27. 11. 1981, Mr. V. C. Agarwal, the then Additional District Judge, was appointed as Ad hoc Claims Commissioner. He started functioning from. 1. 3. 1982. On 15. 1. 1982, application for compensation was filed jointly by Surajkali, widow of deceased Surajbhan and the appellants in all these appeals. All these appellants were then minors. Any such application for compensation is required to be filed within three months of the accident by force of Section 82-C (2) of the Act. An application was, however, made on 15. 1. 1982 for condoning the delay in making that application. This application was thus made within one year of the accident and by force of provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 82-C, the Claims Commissioner could condone the delay in making that application on 'good cause' shown for the delay. An objection was then taken by the respondent railway that such joint application was not tenable. Consequently, claim on behalf of the present appellants was withdrawn and the original application was amended whereby claim was restricted only for compensation for the death of Surajbhan. That application was allowed. Permission was granted to withdraw the claim on behalf of the present appellants and permission for filing fresh claims on their behalf was also granted subject to law of limitation. By order dated 26. 4. 1982, delay in filing the claim petition was condoned. That order indicates that the affidavit filed by Surajkali explaining the delay was not rebutted. The Claims Commissioner also found that Surajkali was unable to move out because she had herself sustained injuries. For these reasons, the Commissioner found that the 'good cause was shown for condoning the delay. The petition was, therefore, entertained and finally allowed. No appeal has been preferred against it and that award has, therefore, become final.

(3.) ON 6. 5. 1982, fresh applications on behalf of the minor sons of the deceased Surajbhan through their next friend Surajkali were filed. They were accompanied by applications for condoning the delay in filing those applications duly supported by affidavit of Surajkali. Same grounds as were urged in the original application were reiterated. It does not appear from the record that any reply or affidavit opposing those applications was filed. However, by order dated 14. 5. 1982 (impugned order), the Claims Commissioner found that despite disabilities due to illness and physical infirmity, Surajkali could file those applications and, therefore, that illness and infirmity could not prevent her from making the applications earlier. Consequently, the applications for condonation of delay were rejected and all the claim petitions have been dismissed as barred by time. It is worthy of note that the Ad hoc Claims Commissioner continued to be the same person who earlier condoned the delay in filing the original claim petition on similar grounds.