SHAILESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 30th August, 2007 whereby the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 17(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act 1989) and gainsaid to condone the delay of 10 years and five months in filing the claim petition.

(2.) The facts necessary to deal with the instant appeal in brief are that on 9th September, 1991 the appellant-Shailesh Kumar Sharma along with his colleagues boarded the Train No.9023 DN Janta Express at Bharatpur Station and while boarding the said Train which was in a slow motion, his feet slipped from the footboard of the compartment and he fell down between the platform and the train, resulting into several injuries on both the legs apart from other injuries. The information, with regard to this accident, was given by ASM, to Government Railway Police Station, Bharatpur. The applicant-appellant was immediately rushed to Railway Hospital from where after first aid, sent to General Hospital at Bharatpur for treatment. The applicant-appellant filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur along with an application under Section 17(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989 for condonation of delay. The appellant submitted before the Railway Claims Tribunal that the delay occasioned in filing the claim petition was bonafide, as he was under a great shock, owing to Untoward Incident. On account of severe mental shock, he lost the mental balance as also the memory for a long period. He was confined by his family members within the boundaries of the house. These were the factors which caused delay in filing the claim petition.

(3.) Having heard both the parties and carefully perused the medical certificates furnished by the appellant, the Railway Claims Tribunal observed that the appellant had submitted the medical certificates only pertaining to the year 1999 with regard to his mental illness. The appellant utterly failed to convince the Tribunal as to why did he not file the claim petition in between the year 1991 to the year 1998. Learned Tribunal further inferred that since the appellant-applicant utterly failed to satisfactorily explain the inordinate delay of 10 years and five months in filing the claim petition, the application deserved to be dismissed and the same stood dismissed accordingly.