Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
T. Yuvaraj – Appellant
Versus
Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench and Ors. – Respondents
CRP (PD) Nos. 2759 and 2760 of 2014
Decided On : 09-07-2019
Constitution of India - Article 22 - challenging the order – Claim of compensation – injury – Condo nation of delay - As seen from the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 17 of 2010 seeking to condone the delay of 594 days, the petitioner has stated that due to the injury caused to him, he was admitted in Tanjore Government Hospital and he was in coma stage for a period of 35 days. Thereafter, he was unable to speak and recognise others for a long period of time and he was completely bedridden. He has also stated that it took more than 2½ years for him to recover from the injury. It is also stated that, in the meantime, his mother passed away, seeing his pathetic condition. In the said process, according to the petitioner, there was a delay of 594 days in filing the claim application claim was filed with a delay of 594 days. The delay can be condoned by the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 17(2) of the Railway, Claims Tribunal Act, if the applicant satisfies the claims Tribunal that he has sufficient cause for not making the claim application within the prescribed period – Held, Admittedly, injuries have been sustained by the petitioner, but whether the said injuries are covered under the Railways Act or the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 can be adjudicated by the Tribunal only on merits; In as much as the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, it should be given a liberal and expansive interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. This being the case, the Tribunal ought to have considered the objects of the benevolent legislation, while deciding the condone delay applications as well as the Review Petition filed by the petitioner. However, as seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal has rejected the applications on the ground that sufficient reasons have not been given by the petitioner for condonation of delay. As seen from the affidavits filed in support of I.A. No. 17 of 2010, Res. A. No. 21 of 2010 and I.A. Nos. 16 and 17 of 2012, it is the case of the petitioner that he sustained serious head injury, which caused fracture to his parietal bone in the head, which resulted in coma and, hence, he was hospitalised for a long number of days. Further, it is his case that he was bedridden and recovered partially from his injuries only after 2-½ years. These facts ought to have been considered by the Tribunal, but the same has not been duly considered - Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent/Railways would submit that the petitioner is not entitled for the claim, as the injury allegedly suffered by the petitioner, is a non scheduled injury under Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. This can be considered by the Tribunal, when it is deciding the matter on merits. It is always left open to the 2nd respondent to raise all defences, in accordance with law to dispute the claim made by the petitioner when the claim application is heard on merits. At this stage, this Court is only concerned whether the reasons given by the petitioner for condonation of the delay ought to have been condoned by the Railway Claims Tribunal or not - For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal ought to have allowed I.A. Nos. 16 and 17 of 2012, considering the fact that the delay has been properly explained by the petitioner, considering the fact that the Railways Act and if such is a beneficial Legislation to protect the interest of the injured claimants like that of the petitioner - Petitions are allowed
ORDER :
Abdul Quddhose, J.
1. The instant Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 05.06.2012 passed; by the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai, in I.A. Nos. 16 and 17 of 2012 in Res. A. No. 21 of 2010.
Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant Civil Revision Petitions:
2. The petitioner is the claimant before the Railways Claims Tribunal, who has sought for damages, as a result of the accident caused to him on 17.07.2007 while he was travelling in the Tiruchirappalli - Tiruvarur passenger Train No. 6876 from Trichy to Kurnbakonam. The claim was filed with a delay of 594 days. The delay can be condoned by the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 17(2) of the Railway, Claims Tribunal Act, if the applicant satisfies the claims Tribunal that he has sufficient cause for not making the claim application within the prescribed period.
3. As seen from the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 17 of 2010 seeking to condone the delay of 594 days, the petitioner has stated that due to the injury caused to him, he was admitted in Tanjore Government Hospital and he was in coma stage for a period of 35 days. Thereafter, he was unable to speak and recognise others for a long period of time and he was completely bedridden. He has also stated that it took more than 2½ years for him to recover from the injury. It is also stated that, in the meantime, his mother passed away, seeing his pathetic condition. In the said process, according to the petitioner, there was a delay of 594 days in filing the claim application.
4. By order dated 09.04.2010, the Railways Claims Tribunal dismissed the condone delay application filed by the petitioner for default, as the petitioner was not present on 09.04.2010 nor was any application moved for seeking an adjournment on his behalf on that date. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Res. A. No. 21 of 2010 to restore I.A. No. 17 of 2010, which was dismissed for default on 09.04.2010, along with a delay of 211 days. The reason given for the said delay of 211 days in filing an application to restore I.A. No. 17 of 2010, which was dismissed for default on 09.04.2010 is that due to his mother's death, he took time to recover from his sorrow and, therefore, he was unable to approach a lawyer to get legal assistance. The said application, viz., Res. A. No. 21 of 2010, also came to be dismissed on 11.03.2011 by the Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner has given the same reason that was given in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 17 of 2010 seeking to condone delay of 594 days in filing the claim application. Further, the Tribunal has observed while dismissing Res. A. No. 21 of 2010 that the petitioner has not filed any medical evidence in support of his illness for a long period of time. The Tribunal has further observed that the delay has not been properly explained by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the Review Petition under Rule 32 of the Railway Claims (Procedure) Rules, seeking for a review of the order, dated 11.03.2011 passed in Res. A. No. 21 of 2010. Once again, there was a delay in filing the Review Petition and therefore, the petitioner has filed two applications (i) I.A. No. 16 of 2012 seeking for a direction to condone the delay of 365 days in filing the Review Petition in Res. A. No. 21 of 2010, which was dismissed on 11.03.2011 and (ii) I.A. No. 17 of 2012 seeking to review the order dated 11.03.2011 passed in Res. A. 21 of 2010 and to restore I.A. No. 17 of 2010 dismissed for default on 09.04.2010.
5. By a common order dated 05.06.2012 passed by the Tribunal in I.A. Nos. 16 and 17 of 2012, the Tribunal rejected both the applications on the ground that production of disability certificate will not be of much help to the petitioner as the injuries are non-scheduled injuries in nature under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 and the Tribunal is only bound by the releva
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
