The court may exercise the discretion of power to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act based on sufficient grounds such as loss, responsibilities, and illness.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Saket A. Waghela, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Sudhir M. Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 248 days which has occurred in preferring an appeal to assail the impugned judgment and order of the Railway Claims Tribunal.

3. Mr. Waghela, learned advocate for the applicant submits that delay in preferring an appeal has merely occurred owing to the fact that the deceased husband of the applicant the main bread winner of the family. It is his further submission that deceased husband as well as the appellant were doing labour work for their survival. Therefore, the death of husband, applicant had gone to her home town and had to a shoulder the responsibility of maintaining a family. He further submits that the learned advocate who was representing the applicant before the tribunal tried to contact her, however as she has not traceable his efforts went in vain. He further submits that the applicant had also suffer some illness as a result she could not prefer the appeal in prescribed limitation. He, therefore, urges that the delay which has occurred in assailing the impugned judgment and order of the tribunal may be condoned.

4. The respondent has resisted this application by filing affidavit in reply.

5. Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent has oppose this application. He submits that the delay is not sufficiently and satisfactorily explained. It is his further submission that the poverty and rustic background he is not sufficient reason to allowing the application for condone the delay. He submits that the applicant could have preferred the appeal in formapapus. He, therefore, urges that the delay may not be condoned.

6. I have considered the rival contentions.

7. The applicant has elaborately explained the delay which has occurred in paragraph No. 6 which reads as under:

“6. That the applicant and her deceased husband originally are resident of Maharashtra and had come to Gujarat in search of work and were residing at Anand. It is further submitted that the applicant and her husband were doing labour work and were earning daily. The applicant also was doing household work in the locality where they were residing and by doing that, she used to contribute to managing the financial affairs of their house. It is further submitted that she went into a state of shock after the untoward incident occurred with her husband and with such a mental state, she had preferred the claim application with the help of her Ld. Advocate below. It is further submitted that the applicant not bearing the pain of losing her husband went to her hometown in Maharashtra. It is further stated that all the responsibilities of her family members were upon her and with no earning members, she had no option left but to work non-stop to survive. It is further submitted that keeping trust in her Ld. Advocate she left for her hometown in Maharashtra and at this age she used to go to do household works and other labour works for her living. It is further submitted she had to work for her survival and the Ld. Advocate below had no idea that she had left for Maharashtra and after passing of the impugned judgment the Ld. Advocate also tried to make a contact but he would not make the same. It is further submitted that the house of the applicant was in a distant place she had no means/technology to contact and even the postal services are not easily accessible and therefore it was difficult for her and the Ld. Advocate below to contact each other and the man difficult was that she was uneducted and no relative of her was residing in the State of Gujarat who could help her/assist her. It is further submitted that on the other hand the Ld. Advocate below was also trying to contact her and from the record of the case he got the address of the applicant of Maharashtra and upon that address also he wrote a letter. But despite the effort by the Ld. Ad