JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. Mahendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent.

2. First Appeal From Order under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been filed against order dated 30.09.2021 whereby application for condonation of delay in filing claim has been dismissed along with the claim application.

3. Vide order dated 26.11.2021, appeal had been admitted while summoning the lower court records, which have been forwarded by the tribunal concerned.

4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that upon death of Late Ajay Kumar, on 05.07.2015, the appellant who is his father and dependent went into shock and was mentally disturbed for a prolonged time due to which claim application was filed with a delay of three years and six months. It is submitted that in the application for condonation of delay, cogent ground had been indicated for filing the claim application with considerable delay. It is submitted that the delay in filing claim application was neither deliberate nor intentional and occasioned only due to advice of counsel as per which considerable time was lost in obtaining police reports and other papers to establish death of deceased. It is submitted that the aforesaid factors have been completely ignored by the Tribunal while rejecting claim on the ground of delay. It is submitted that the provisions of Act being beneficial in nature, the Tribunal should have leaned towards hearing on merits instead of rejecting the claim application on technicalities.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Union of India has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for appellant with the submission that no cogent explanation was furnished by the claimant for filing claim application after three years and six months. It is submitted that actually the claim has been filed after four years, five months and 25 days from the date of alleged accident and it is only after excluding one year limitation that the delay comes to three years five months and 25 days as on the date of filing of claim application. It is submitted that such a delay was clearly intentional and willful particularly since the delay has not been precisely explained and as such was rightly rejected by the Tribunal.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, it is evident that claim application of the appellant has been rejected by means of impugned order, while rejecting application for condonation of delay on the ground that reason for delay has been given only in general terms and has not been explained satisfactorily.

7. Considering the aforesaid submissions, the following point of determination is being framed :

(i) Whether the Tribunal erred in law in rejecting the claim application on the ground of limitation without adverting to purpose of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987?

8. With regard to aforesaid proposition regarding condonation of delay, it is apparent that there was an actual delay of more than four years in filing claim from the date of alleged accident but it is also important to bear in mind that the concept of compensation for accident arising out of and due to use of Railway in terms of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is clearly a beneficial legislation. The introduction and statement of objects and reasons of the Act of 1987 clearly indicates that the Act has been introduced to make the Indian Railways accountable to Indian Citizens in a democratic setup and to make it more efficient and accountable. As such, the aspect of condonation of delay is required to be seen in the context of a beneficial legislation enacted for the purposes of awarding compensation to persons who are injured or die due to an accident arising out of use of Railway property.

9. Considering the said fact that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, normal conditions for condonation of delay in such