SMT. Saroj & Ors. v. Union of India

1. This first appeal is filed against the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 13.8.2013 whereby the Tribunal on the death of the original claimant has not allowed substitution of the legal heirs by observing that there is delay in filing the application and there is no provision for condonation of delay.

2. Nothing shows more mis-application of mind by the Tribunal than this case because the Tribunal has not even cared to see Rule 26 proviso of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 and which specifically allows bringing on record the legal heirs on sufficient cause 2014:DHC:2738 being shown. Though the word condonation of delay is not written in this proviso it is very much implicit in this proviso that it deals with condonation of delay because otherwise there was no need to have a proviso for allowing bringing on record the legal heirs after the period of limitation. I would also like to note that the Tribunal is by virtue of Rule 44 vested with inherent powers to pass orders as may be necessary for the end of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of the Tribunal. In my opinion, if there is no other provision directly preventing passing of an order by the Tribunal, surely Rule 44 can always be invoked by the Tribunal to ensure that justice is done.

3. The Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy AIR 1998 SC 3222 has held that once there is delay, there is always some negligence, however that is not sufficient to reject the prayer for condonation of delay unless and until there is want of good faith on behalf of the applicant. In the present case, the appellants/applicants who are the legal heirs of the deceased claimant get no benefit of any delay being caused in seeking their substitution. Also, the Tribunal has not been unnecessarily harshed because the application for bringing on record the legal heirs was filed within 160 days of the death of the deceased Sh. Harphool Singh.

4. In view of the above, appeal is allowed. Impugned order of the Tribunal dated 13.8.2013 is set aside. The appellants who are legal heirs of the deceased claimant Sh. Harphool Singh will stand substituted in place of the original deceased claimant Sh. Harphool Singh. Amended memo of parties be filed before the Tribunal on behalf of the appellants within four weeks of the case being listed for the first time before the Tribunal pursuant to the present judgment.

5. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Chairman of the Railway Claims Tribunal at Delhi for necessary information.

6. Parties to appear before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi on 23rd July, 2014. Parties are left to bear their own costs. MAY 22, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne