JUDGMENT:

SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Tribunal Act, is filed against the order, dated 28.10.2021 passed in DDR No. 297 of 2020 in M.A. No. 17 of 2021 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravathi Bench, whereby the application filed by the appellant to condone of delay of 1796 days in filing claim petition was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/applicant met with untoward incident on 16.11.2014 while he was travelling through valid ticket, due to which his left leg was crushed and ultimately it was amputated below knee. Due to lack of knowledge about railway compensation case and provisions of Section 124 of Railways Act for compensation, he did not file application for compensation. But, recently he came to know about the same through one Vishnu Vardhan, who was awarded compensation by RCT/Amaravathi Bench, Guntur towards loss of left eye in train journey. Hence, he filed claim petition along with delay petition to condone the delay of 1796 days.

3. Lower Tribunal dismissed the petition holding that the explanation given by the petitioner is not sufficient to condone such delay and the records pertaining to the said period might have been destroyed and if the delay is condoned, it would prejudice the rights of Railways to contest the matter.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Railways Claims Tribunal, applicant filed the present appeal.

5. Respondent filed counter and contended that Lower Tribunal considered the delay in a proper perspective and dismissed the petition. No valid grounds were made out to entertain the appeal and thus prayed to dismiss the appeal.

6. Heard Ms. Aparajita learned counsel representing Smt. N.S. Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Jupudi V.K. Yagna Dutt, learned counsel for the respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal failed to appreciate applicability of the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railway Act and thus came to a wrong conclusion regarding delay. The lower tribunal ought to have condoned the delay of 1796 days since the appellant is not aware of legal remedies. She also would submit that the Tribunal without considering the case law wrongly dismissed the delay application. Hence, prays to allow the appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that as per Section 17(1)(b) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the application has to be made within one year of occurrence of the incident. He submits that except pleading ignorance of law the appellant has not explained the delay properly and ignorance of law cannot be an excuse “ignorantia juris non-excusat.” He further contended that going by the averment that the appellant was bed-ridden for two years i.e. till 2016, thereafter till filing of petition no valid reason was explained. Lock down due to COVID-19 pandemic situation was affected from 24.03.2020. He further submits that as per Section 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, an appeal shall lie from every order, not being an interlocutory order and the order impugned comes with the purview of an interlocutory order, appeal is not maintainable. Thus prays to dismiss the appeal.

9. Now the point for consideration is whether the appellant has explained delay properly in filing OA? If so, whether any interference is warranted?

10. While considering the application for condonation of delay, the Court has to see whether the delay is inordinate or delay is few days and that reasons assigned are valid and cogent. Party seeking condonation of delay needs to explain the delay properly, the grounds which are reasonable and plausible.

11. In Balwant Singh (Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 685 after referring to earlier case law, the Hon’ble Apex Court held at paragraphs 24 and 25 as under:

“We may state that even if the term “sufficient cause” has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the con