Sri.S.Y.Shivalli., learned counsel for appellants and

Sri.Byregowda.,

learned

counsel

on

behalf

of

Sri.Abhinay.Y.T., for respondent have appeared in person.

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall

be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before

the Tribunal.

An application came to be filed under Section

16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with

Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred

to as 8the Act9) against the respondent Railways for

payment of compensation Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four

Lakh only) along with 12% interest from the date of

3

application till realization on account of death of one

Mohammad Shalam in an untoward incident.

It is stated that deceased Mohammad Shalam is the

husband of the first applicant and father of the second and

third applicants. It is stated that on 09.07.2005, the

deceased had gone to attend his personal work as such he

boarded a train after purchasing a ticket. Due to jerk and

jolt, he fell down from a moving train near Yadlapur-

Chikkasugur in between KM No.585/0-1 and succumbed to

injuries. Contending that it is an untoward incident, the

applicants claimed compensation. They also filed an

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to

condone the delay.

The Railways filed objection contending that there is

a delay of 5 years 9 months and 18 days in all 2,128 days

in filing OA and the applicants have not shown any

reasonable cause/reasons to condone the delay as per

Section 17(1)(b) of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act,

4

1987. Among other grounds they prayed for the dismissal

of the application.

The

Tribunal

dismissed

the

application

for

condonation of delay and consequently, the application

was also rejected vide order dated:20.09.2013.

It is this order which is challenged in this Appeal on

several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Appeal.

4.

Learned counsel for appellants submits that

the order passed by the Tribunal is not proper either in law

or on facts and evidence in the case.

Next, he submitted that the Tribunal has grossly

erred in dismissing the IA bearing No.202/2012 without

appreciating the real facts and circumstances of the case.

A further submission is made that the Tribunal

committed a serious error in disbelieving the medical

certificates. It is also submitted that the applicants have

assigned proper, cogent and genuine reasons in support of

5

their contention regarding condonation of delay, which the

Tribunal failed to appreciate.

Learned counsel vehemently contended that the

Tribunal has failed to exercise the power vested in it to

ascertain, the geniuses of the medical certificates.

Lastly, he submitted that viewed from any angle, the

order of the Tribunal is unsustainable and accordingly he

submitted that the appeal may be allowed.

5.

Sri.Byregowda.,

learned

counsel

for

the

Railways justified the order of the Tribunal.

Next, he submitted that there is an inordinate delay

of 5 years 9 months and 18 days in filing a claim

application.

A further submission is made that the applicants

have not shown sufficient cause to condone the delay.

Lastly, he submitted that the Tribunal in extenso

referred to the material on record and rejected the

6

application for condonation of delay and also rejected the

claim. The appellants have not made out any good grounds

to interfere with the order. Accordingly, he prayed for the

dismissal of the appeal.

6.

Heard the contentions urged on behalf of

respective parties and perused the appeal papers and

record with care.

7.

In the backdrop of the specific contentions with

regard to condonation of delay, what is required to be

considered and answered is whether the applicants have

shown sufficient cause to condone the delay?

To answer this, I propose to refer to the law relating

to limitation.

Statutes of limitation are designed to effectuate a

beneficent public purpose viz., to prevent the taking away

from one what he has for long been permitted to consider

his own and on the fai