The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay and the need to ensure substantive justice is not trumped by technicalities.

JUDGMENT

M.S. Karnik, J. - The judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur ('Tribunal' for short) in Claim application No.Ma/NGP/0013/2018 dated 26.06.2018 rejecting the application for condonation of delay of 1380 days in fling the claim application for grant of compensation on account of death of Jaikumar s/o Devrao Wasnik ('Jaikumar' for short) is under challenge in this appeal.

2. The claim application was fled before the Tribunal by Nishant Devrao Wasnik, younger brother of Jaikumar. On 03.05.2013, Jaikumar was returning from Tumsar to his village Salekasa after distributing the invitation cards of his sister's wedding which was fied on 15.05.2013. Jaikumar purchased a journey ticket bearing No.42214014 worth Rs.20/-, which was valid from Tumsar to Salekasa railway station.

3. Jaikumar was traveling in the general compartment of the train. The train was overcrowded and therefore, Jaikumar was standing near the door of the train. Due to sudden jerk and rush in the train, Jaikumar was pushed by the other passengers which resulted in the untoward incident. Jaikumar fell down from the running train at K.M.No.963/03 near Salekasa railway station, Dist.Gondia. Jaikumar came under the wheels of the running train and died on the spot.

4. The application was fled for condonation of delay of 1380 days in fling the claim application u/s.16 of The Railway Claims Tribunal act, 1987 for compensation. The Tribunal, in the frst place, found that the claim application is fled by the younger brother of the Jaikumar. In Para 3 of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal records that, when the question was put to the counsel for the appellant, it was stated that the parents and paternal grand-parents of the deceased are not alive and there is no widow, sister, unmarried sister and minor brother of 'Jaikumar'. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the applicant is not a dependent within the meaning of Clause (b) of Section 123 of the Railways act, 1989 ('Railways act' for short). The Tribunal then proceeded to eiamine the question of delay. The Tribunal observed that the eipression 'sufcient cause' cannot be erased from Section 17 of The Railway Claim Tribunals act by adopting eicessive liberal approach which would defeat the very purpose of Section 17 of the Railway Claim Tribunals act. It further held that there must be 'sufcient cause' shown for the purpose of delay condonation. It found that no such cause has been stated in the application.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, in the frst instance the Tribunal should have considered the application for condonation of delay. according to him, only if the delay is condoned, the question of considering objections as to the maintainability of the claim application can be considered. In his submission, even before condoning the delay in fling the claim application, the Tribunal has committed an error in deciding the objection raised by the respondent ('railway', for short) that the claimant is not a dependent, which could be gone into only after the delay is condoned. It is then submitted that sufcient cause is shown for condoning the delay in the application which cause is not at all considered by the Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that as the application is for claiming compensation under Chapter XIII of the Railways act, the question of delay is to be construed liberally having regard to the benevolent object of the legislation. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following decision in support of his submissions.

1. Brahampal alias Summay & anr. V/s. National Insurance Company, reported in (2021)-6-SCC-512.

2. Jyoti Manohar Shetye V/s. ashok Jagannath Power & Ors., reported in 2019(6)Mh.L.J.-533.

3. Shilabai Ramchandani V/s. The Union of India, General Manager, Central Railway, CSMT, Mumbai iun First appeal No.119 of 2022 dated 22.04.2022 (Nagpur Bench).

6. In support of his contention that even before the delay can be condoned, it is not open for the Cou