Ravi Bhusan Shrivastva v. Union of India

1. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of about 4 year and 9 months i.e., 1735 days in filing the present appeal.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, I find that the appellants are miserably failing to show any sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Unfortunate as it may look, their only son met with an untoward incident on 06.06.2012 and a claim petition was filed against the Union of India/Railways seeking compensation. However, the learned Railway Claims Tribunal[1] vide order dated 1 RCT 19.02.2013 found that there had been filed two different claim petitions by same claimants through two different Advocates. It is pertinent to mention that it was the case of the appellants that they had only engaged legal services of Mr. B.N. Singh, Advocate and there were no instructions to Mr. K.M. Murari, Advocate to appear in other OA 187/2012. Though the court notice was issued to the appellants to explain under what circumstances they had appointed two different Advocates, it appears that the appellants failed to appear and offer any satisfactory explanation. The claim petition, was therefore, dismissed.

3. A review application was filed thereafter by the claimants and it was sought to be canvassed that they had only filed original claim petition No. 208/2012 and condonation of delay of 106 days was sought for filing the review application. Learned RCT observed that the applicant Ravi Bhusan Shrivastava was an educated person and it was not fathomable that he was duped by anyone into filing of two applications and the learned RCT frowned upon the fact that the appellant Ravi Bhusan Shrivastava failed to appear and offer any explanation for his misconduct. Although, he did file an affidavit but despite repeated notices issued by the learned RCT, he did not appear before the Forum and kept on lingering the matter, and ultimately finding no reasons to review the earlier order dated 19.02.2013 and their being no error apparent on the face of the record, the same was dismissed on 12.08.2015.

4. It is in the said background that now the instant appeal is instituted under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,, which is evidently delayed by more than 4 years and 9 months of the passing of the impugned order dated 19.02.2013 and 12.08.2015.

5. This time a plea is taken by the appellants that they had engaged services of Ms. Mamta Yadav, Advocate an associate of previous counsel, who failed to appear in the matter in a timely manner; and that she filed some application earlier with the Registry but the matter was not pursued, and after receiving brief from her previous counsel, the appellants came to know that no appeal had been filed with the Registry of the High Court of Delhi; and thus he looked for a new counsel and has engaged the present counsel to appear on their behalf.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently urged that the blemishes on the party of the appellants may be overlooked and requested that they may be allowed to get the benefits of statutory amount of compensation irrespective of delay caused in filing the present appeal since the only bread earner in the family had died in the tragic incident.

7. The submissions addressed by the learned counsel for the appellants are not palatable in law. The appeal is hopelessly barred by limitation and the appellants are guilty of contumacious and unexplained delay and latches. The manner in which they have pursued their remedies tell its own tale. There are no justifiable grounds to be lenient with them and allow them to agitate for their legal rights for lack of sincerity and efforts. This Court does not wishes to initiate any drastic perjury proceedings against the 2 RCT Act appellants for their failure to explain filing of two claim petitions. Hence, the instant application for condonation of delay is rejected.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is held to be not maintainable and same is also dismissed.

9. The pending application also stands disposed of.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J. DECEMBER 05, 2023