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.

ORDER

1) An application for compensation under Section 16 of the Railways Act has been filed on 15.03.2026 by the Applicants for claiming compensation in respect of death of Dhiraj Kumar S/o Kailash Mahto in an accident fall from running train which had taken place on 17.06.2023. As per the office report, this application is barred by 635 days.

2) In view of the delay, Miscellaneous Application No. 09 of 2026 has been filed seeking condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit sworn by the deponent, Kailash Mahto (Applicant No. 1). In paragraph 4 of the said affidavit, it is stated that the due to sudden demise of his son, his wife (Applicant No.2) went in a state of shock and grief struggling with depression associated with health, emotional and social challenges. It is further submitted that only a few days prior to filing the present claim application, their friends and family advised them to approach this Tribunal for claiming compensation for the death of Kailash Mahto. Accordingly, a prayer has been made to condone the delay of 635 days in filing the claim application.

3) The Respondent, on the other hand, has filed a counter stating that, the alleged untoward incident in the case occurred on 17.06.2023 and as such, the limitation for filing of the Claim Petition is one year from the date of 'Untoward Incident' i.e., on or before 17.06.2024, whereas, the petitioner has filed the above O.A on 25.03.2026, much beyond the prescribed period of limitation of one year, along with a petition for condonation of delay under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 635 days on the grounds, which are far from being sufficient, can, in no manner be held to have been reasonable, for explaining the inordinate delay in filing of the claim application.. In this regard it is submitted that, in view of the established position of law that, ignorance of law is no excuse and as such, the alleged ignorance of the applicants can, in no manner be held to have been a reasonable ground for condoning the delay in filing of the claim application.

4) Heard the arguments of learned Counsel's for the Applicant and Respondent. On considering the material documents available on record, citations and the contentions of the learned counsel for both the parties the findings are recorded as follows.

5) The limitation for filing the claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal has been provided under Sec 17 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987. Section (1) (b) of the said section provides that under subclause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) [or, as the case may be, sub-section (1A)] of section 13 unless the application is made within the one year of occurrence of the accident.

6) The subclause (2) of Section 17 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), an application may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1) if the applicant satisfies the Claims Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.

7) While considering the application for condonation of delay, the court has to see whether the delay is inordinate or delay is few days and that reasons assigned are valid and cogent. Party seeking condonation of delay needs to explain the delay properly, the grounds which are reasonable and plausible.

8) In this regard, in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & others reported in (2013) 12 S.C.C. 649 the principles are laid down in said judgment while considering the delay application. The relevan