1. The appellants have filed present appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal on 10.6.2015 in Claim Application No. MA/NGP/2014/0031.

2. The Claim Petition has been dismissed on the ground of delay. Separate application seeking condonation of delay was filed and the Tribunal has rejected the said application observing that the delay has not been properly explained. The Tribunal, has consequently refused to consider the claim petition on merits and has thus dismissed the claim petition also.

3. Shri Madan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and in the personal search immediately carried out after occurrence of the accident, a ticket was found with him. Learned counsel further submitted that the present appellants being not aware of the provisions of law and for lack of appropriate advice, could not file the petition within the stipulated time. It was further contended by the appellants that one of their relatives advised them to contact one lawyer and accordingly papers were handed over to the said lawyer, however, the said lawyer did not prepare the petition and also did not file the same before the Tribunal. It was further contended that after having noticed that the said Advocate has not filed the petition, the papers were taken back from the said lawyer and another lawyer was entrusted with the matter who got the documents translated for being placed on the record of the Tribunal and the claim petition was preferred and therefore, delay of four years had occurred in presenting the application.

4. Learned Counsel submits that the appellants have sufficiently explained the delay and considering the fact that they are coming from poor strata of the society, not having sufficient knowledge about legal provisions, the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay. Learned counsel has relied upon the unreported judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Nirmal Jeet Kaur vs. Union of India and another decided on 14th of January, 2011, and has placed his reliance more particularly on the observations made by the Honourable Delhi High Court in paragraph no. 5 of the said judgment. Learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has adopted a technical approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay and he, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order and sought further direction to the Tribunal to decide the claim petition on its own merits.

5. Shri Nawandar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. Learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has considered each and every ground raised in the application for condonation of delay and has passed a well reasoned order dealing with each of the said point. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal has also observed that false statements are made in the application for condonation of delay which are not supported by any necessary particulars. Learned Counsel placed his reliance on the unreported judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Brijesh Devi vs. Union of India, decided on 4th November, 2009 and submitted that no interference is required in the impugned judgment and order.

6. After having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment, I am inclined to allow the appeal for the following reasons.

7. It is not in dispute that the delay which has been caused in filing the appeal by the appellants is of a longer period of about four and half years. The question is, whether the delay so caused is sufficiently explained by the appellants and whether the grounds assigned by the appellants for occurrence of such delay can be accepted to be just and sufficient. There cannot be a dispute about the proposition which has been upheld by the Honourable Apex Court in several judgments that a huge dela