Back
NANDITA DUBEY
Dasharath Rahangdale – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Through – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Nandita Dubey, J. - This appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal act, 1987 challenging the order dated 25.11.2021 whereby the application for condonation of delay of the appellants has been rejected for the reason that the appellants have not explained the delay on day today basis and consequently the claim petition was also dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Railway Cliams Tribunal, Bhopal (M.P.) has committed an error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. It is further pointed out that the impugned order has been passed by a Member (Technical), whereas in the case of amuly Chandra Kalita vs. Union of India, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 181, the apex Court has held that every Bench of the Tribunal must consist of a judicial Member and an administrative Member. It is further pointed out that similar question has been decided in (2002) 10 SCC 338 in the case of State of M.P. vs. B.R. Thakre and Others wherein the Court has held that the Division Bench of one of the Member should be a Judicial Member. In Para 3 of this judgment, the apex Court has held as under:-
'Even assuming that all the powers of the Tri
Liberal condonation of delay should be permitted in cases of railway accidents, and efforts should be made to decide claims on merit without being concerned about technicalities of law.
While entertaining petitions praying for condonation of delay in filing an application seeking justice, courts/tribunals are not required to be hyper technical. It is true that law helps the vigilant....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of condonation of delay under Section 17(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, and the need for a liberal,....
The court held that a valid reason existed for the delay in filing the compensation claim due to the appellant's severe injuries, warranting the condonation of delay under the Railway Claims Tribunal....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay and the need to ensure substantive justice is not trumped by technicalities....
Mere assertions of mental distress, without supporting evidence, do not constitute a 'sufficient cause' to condone an inordinate delay in filing a statutory compensation claim under the Railways Act.
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
