Condonation of delay based on poor economic status, inability to receive the impugned order, and the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown, in line with the Supreme Court's direction to exclude a specific period for computing the limitation period.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

CM APPL. 34981/2020

1. By way of present application file under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC, the appellants seek condonation of delay of 1122 days in filing the present appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits the appellants being the sisters of the deceased are the only legal heirs and reside at Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. After the death of deceased, there is no one to look after them.

Further, the appellants did not receive the certified copy of the impugned order in time. Additionally, it was submitted that due to lockdown imposed on account of COVID-19 pandemic, appellants could not file the present appeal within the stipulated period.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the application.

4. It is worthwhile to note that in Mohsina & Ors. v Union of India & Ors., reported as MANU/DE/2465/2017, delay of 804 days in filing of the appeal was condoned by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, taking into account poor economic status of the appellants/claimants. Relevant excerpts from the decision is reproduced hereunder:

"4. The appellants are seeking condonation of delay of 804 days in filing the appeal on the ground that appellant no. 1 is an illiterate and poor lady; she lost her husband in the train accident; her father-in-law was pursuing the case before the Claims Tribunal; her father-in-law expired, whereupon her mother-in-law threw her out from the matrimonial home and she is residing with her father who is also handicapped; she was working as a maid servant to make both ends meet; her cousin came from abroad on 02nd May, 2013 and felt pity over her and made enquiries from the Claims Tribunal and thereafter, helped her in filing the appeal.

5. Considering the extreme poverty and illiteracy of the appellants, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to the condition that the appellants would not be entitled to interest for the delayed period of 804 days."

5. This Court takes note of the fact that, vide order dated 23.09.2021 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 titled as In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, the Supreme Court has directed that for computing the period of limitation in suit, appeal, application or proceedings, the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and the delay of 1122 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.

6. Application is disposed of in the above terms.

FAO 252/2020 and CM APPL. Nos. 34982-83/2020

7. By way of present appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'), the appellants, who were claimants before the Railway Claims Tribunal, challenged the order dated 19.12.2017 whereby claim application filed by them was dismissed.

8. The facts, as culled out from the material placed on record, are that the appellants in application filed before the Tribunal claimed that their brother namely Late Shri Arjun had undertaken a train journey on 30.10.2016 from New Delhi to Ghaziabad after purchasing a second class ordinary train ticket bearing No. K-11195008. It was further claimed that when the train reached near Shivaji Bridge, due to sudden jerk/jolt, the deceased accidently fell from the moving train at the end of the platform of New Delhi Railway Station and died on the spot.

9. Mr. Yogesh Swaroop, learned counsel for the appellants contended that despite recovery of train ticket, the Tribunal opined that the accident could not be categorised as an `untoward incident'. It was further contended that in reaching such conclusion, the Tribunal did not appreciate the paper slip containing the contact details of the deceased that was recovered from the person of the deceased.

10. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, learned counsel for the respondent/UOI, on the other hand, supported th