The appellants must prove sufficient cause for any delay in filing a claim petition, and the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance in exercising discretion in such matters.

V.B. Gupta, J.

This appeal has been filed u/s 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short as 'Act.) by appellants against judgment dated 30th May, 2008 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi (for short as "Tribunal.). Vide impugned judgment, application for condonation of delay of the appellants was dismissed.

2. Appellants filed claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of Parveen Kumar in an untoward railway accident on 1st June, 2004. Deceased was husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellants No. 2 and 3. Along with claim petition, an application for condonation of delay was filed in which it was stated that appellants were under great sorrow due to untimely death of deceased. Appellant No. 1, visited G.R.P, P.P. Shahdara number of times to know about the preparation of inquest report but no satisfactory answer was given to her. After numerous visits, police of G.R.P, P.P., Shahdara supplied few documents on 15th May, 2005.

3. Thereafter, appellant No. 1 approached an advocate at Tis Hazari Court, Delhi and handed over all the documents which were demanded by him. That advocate told her that he has prepared the case and got the signatures of appellant No. 1 on various documents and also told her that he will file the case within one year from the date of accident. He also told the appellant that they need not come and he will inform them about the progress of the case.

4. In the meanwhile, appellant received a letter dated 18th October, 2005, from one S.S. Shambuti, Pleader Railway Claims, who again got the signatures of appellant No. 1 on various documents and gave assurance about filing of the case but he never informed the appellants about the case. Appellants tried their best to find out that advocate on the address given but they failed to trace that advocate. Thereafter, appellant contacted the present counsel and got the case prepared. There is a delay of two years eight months and twenty eight days in filing the petition. This delay is neither deliberate nor intentional, rather it is due to the reasons stated above.

5. In reply, it is stated by respondent that there is a considerable delay in filing the petition and appellants cannot take benefit of the wrong if any, committed by their advocate. Considering the facts that appellants received documents on 15th May, 2005, they still took two years and eight months to file present petition, which shows that there is considerable delay and no sufficient ground is made out for condonation of delay.

6. It is contended by learned Counsel for appellants that appellants are poor and illiterate villagers and they did not have the knowledge of filing the claim petition within one year. They handed over all the documents to counsel who assured them that he will file the petition but unfortunately said counsel did not prepare the case nor did he file the claim petition. Appellants cannot be punished for the wrong committed be their advocate. Moreover, appellants No. 2 and 3 are minors and they cannot be punished for the wrong committed by appellant No. 1. Thus, delay in filing the petition should be condoned.

7. In support, learned Counsel for appellants cited following judgments;

(i) Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and Others Vs. Gobardhan Sao and Others, (2002) 3 SCC 195

(ii) M.K. Prasad Vs. P. Arumogam, (2001) 6 SCC 176

(iii) N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123

(iv) Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, (1987) 2 SCC 107 and;

(v) Nagarjuna Patnaik v. Jayaky construction and Anr. III (2007) ACC 130 Orissa High Court.

8. On the other hand, it is contended by learned Counsel for respondent that appellants have put entire blame on their earlier counsel but there is nothing on record to show that they ever took any action against their advocate. The explanation given for condonation of delay is neither plausible nor reasonable. In support, learned Counsel for respondent referred a decision of Supr