The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of diligence in prosecuting legal actions and the application of limitation laws to prevent stale claims and compel litigants to be diligent in seeking remedies.

JUDGMENT :

Sri.S.Y.Shivalli., learned counsel for appellants and Sri.Byregowda., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Abhinay.Y.T., for respondent have appeared in person.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Tribunal.

3. An application came to be filed under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondent Railways for payment of compensation Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four Lakh only) along with 12% interest from the date of application till realization on account of death of one Mohammad Shalam in an untoward incident.

It is stated that deceased Mohammad Shalam is the husband of the first applicant and father of the second and third applicants. It is stated that on 09.07.2005, the deceased had gone to attend his personal work as such he boarded a train after purchasing a ticket. Due to jerk and jolt, he fell down from a moving train near Yadlapur Chikkasugur in between KM No.585/0-1 and succumbed to injuries. Contending that it is an untoward incident, the applicants claimed compensation. They also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay.

The Railways filed objection contending that there is a delay of 5 years 9 months and 18 days in all 2,128 days in filing OA and the applicants have not shown any reasonable cause/reasons to condone the delay as per Section 17(1)(b) of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Among other grounds they prayed for the dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently, the application was also rejected vide order dated 20.09.2013.

It is this order which is challenged in this Appeal on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Appeal.

4. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is not proper either in law or on facts and evidence in the case.

Next, he submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in dismissing the IA bearing No.202/2012 without appreciating the real facts and circumstances of the case.

A further submission is made that the Tribunal committed a serious error in disbelieving the medical certificates. It is also submitted that the applicants have assigned proper, cogent and genuine reasons in support of their contention regarding condonation of delay, which the Tribunal failed to appreciate.

Learned counsel vehemently contended that the Tribunal has failed to exercise the power vested in it to ascertain, the geniuses of the medical certificates.

Lastly, he submitted that viewed from any angle, the order of the Tribunal is unsustainable and accordingly he submitted that the appeal may be allowed.

5. Sri.Byregowda., learned counsel for the Railways justified the order of the Tribunal. Next, he submitted that there is an inordinate delay of 5 years 9 months and 18 days in filing a claim application.

A further submission is made that the applicants have not shown sufficient cause to condone the delay.

Lastly, he submitted that the Tribunal in extenso referred to the material on record and rejected the application for condonation of delay and also rejected the claim. The appellants have not made out any good grounds to interfere with the order. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.

6. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of respective parties and perused the appeal papers and record with care.

7. In the backdrop of the specific contentions with regard to condonation of delay, what is required to be considered and answered is whether the applicants have shown sufficient cause to condone the delay?

To answer this, I propose to refer to the law relating to limitation.

Statutes of limitation are designed to effectuate a beneficent public purpose viz., to prevent the taking away from one what he has for long been permitted to consider his own and on the faith of which he plan