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.

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 Tribunal could be exercised by any Single Member, it can only be by a judicial Member of the Tribunal and not any other member under the aforesaid order.'

It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that the claim petition was filed by the appellant on account of death of her husband in a railway accident and the widow/appellant being a lady is unaware of the legal provision and therefore could not take steps within time for filing the claim petition. It is submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ahmad Husain Mansoori & another vs. Union of India passed in W.P. No.12347/2015 has condoned the delay of around 4 years and 22 months in similar circumstances and the Division Bench has held as under:-

'Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Railway Claims Tribunal has been constituted to consider the claim of victims or the dependents who suffer because of accidents and other casualties occurring in the railway Establishment.

Such cases are to be evaluated on merit and efforts should be made to decide them on merit without being concerned about technicalities of law like procedures not being followed in the matter of filing of claim petition or delay. Liberal condonation of delay should be permitted and after evaluating the grievance of the persons, efforts should be made for deciding the claim on merit. In this case, petitioners have lost both their sons in two untoward incidents and the agony suffered by them can be conceived by us. It is a case where atleast justice should have been done by considering the application for grant of compensation on merit and deciding it on merit instead of dismissing it on the grounds of delay.

The petitioners on the basis of material that has come on record have shown sufficient cause for the delay in question and even this Court on 13.2.2014 while considering W.P. No.15395/2012 has found that there is sufficient cause for the delay.

Keeping in view all these factors and the interest of justice involved in the matter, we have no hesitation or doubt that this petition has to be allowed, the impugned order quashed and the matter remanded back to the Claims Tribunal with a direction to decide the claim on merit.

accordingly we allow this petition, quash the order annexure P/3 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal and direct for registering the claim as an application for claim in accordance with the rules and proceed to decide it on merit in accordance with law within a reasonable time.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.'

Having regard to the facts of the case and the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal stands on the similar footing and require to be allowed.

Under the circumstances, the ord