Full Text
Date of Decision: 8th October, 2013
SHANTI DEVI & ORS. …… Appellants
Through: Mr. Gurmit Singh Hans, Advocate.
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
C.M. No.19079/2012 (for delay)
JUDGMENT
1. This is an application seeking condonation of 1045 days delay in filing the appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have also gone through the record. The appellant had filed a claim petition being O.A. No.65/2007 before the Railway Claims Tribunal on account of death of one Nagesh Kumar Sharma, s/o Ram Parkash Sharma and Shanti Devi (appellant No.1) and father of appellant Nos.[2] and 3. The petition was filed in the year 2007 and dismissed on 28.8.2009. 2013:DHC:5220
3. The present appeal has been filed in the year 2013, that is, after a delay of more than three years. The ground which has been set out in the application seeking condonation of delay and the supporting affidavit is that the appellant No.1, Shanti Devi (mother) had gone to her native place as appellant Nos.[2] and 3, whose father had died, had also lost their mother earlier. It was stated in the affidavit that another son of the appellant No.1, Ashok Kumar, was following up the matter with the counsel, however, he could not come to Delhi between August, 2012 to June, 2012 and, therefore, this resulted in delay. It has been stated in the affidavit since the provisions of grant of compensation under the Railway Claims Tribunal are beneficial legislation, therefore, delay may be condoned.
4. Normally speaking, the delay would have been condoned in case a reasonable explanation is given but here is a case where a party has slept over her rights for more than three years without any cogent explanation about the considerable delay. Simply going to the native place and stating that her other son was in touch with the counsel and could not come to Delhi for three years, is not a ground in itself to condone the delay. The non-coming of Ashok Kumar to Delhi for a period of three years clearly shows that they were not serious in pursuing the matter. Had they been serious, they would have immediately come to contact their counsel in Delhi and filed the appeal. In case such callous attitude of the litigant is condoned, it will result in an unending spate of litigation where there will be no end.
5. In my considered opinion, the explanation given by the learned counsel for the appellants does not constitute ‘sufficient cause’. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is dismissed
6. Since the application for condonation of delay is dismissed, the appeal is dismissed as time barred. V.K. SHALI, J. OCTOBER 08, 2013 ‘AA’