Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 342 (RAJ)

Shailesh Kumar Sharma v. Union of India

2012-02-07

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2012
BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 30th August, 2007 whereby the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 17(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act 1989) and gainsaid to condone the delay of 10 years and five months in filing the claim petition. 2. The facts necessary to deal with the instant appeal in brief are that on 9.9.1991 the appellant-Shailesh Kumar Sharma along with his colleagues boarded the Train No.9023 DN Janta Express at Bharatpur Station and while boarding the said Train which was in a slow motion, his feet slipped from the footboard of the compartment and he fell down between the platform and the train, resulting into several injuries on both the legs apart from other injuries. The information, with regard to this accident, was given by ASM, to Government Railway Police Station, Bharatpur. The applicant-appellant was immediately rushed to Railway Hospital from where after first aid, sent to General Hospital at Bharatpur for treatment. The applicant-appellant filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur along with an application under Section 17(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989 for condonation of delay. The appellant submitted before the Railway Claims Tribunal that the delay occasioned in filing the claim petition was bonafide, as he was under a great shock, owing to Untoward Incident. On account of severe mental shock, he lost the mental balance as also the memory for a long period. He was confined by his family members within the boundaries of the house. These were the factors which caused delay in filing the claim petition. 3. Having heard both the parties and carefully perused the medical certificates furnished by the appellant, the Railway Claims Tribunal observed that the appellant had submitted the medical certificates only pertaining to the year 1999 with regard to his mental illness. The appellant utterly failed to convince the Tribunal as to why did he not file the claim petition in between the year 1991 to the year 1998. Learned Tribunal further inferred that since the appellant-applicant utterly failed to satisfactorily explain the inordinate delay of 10 years and five months in filing the claim petition, the application deserved to be dismissed and the same stood dismissed accordingly. 4. Learned Tribunal further inferred that since the appellant-applicant utterly failed to satisfactorily explain the inordinate delay of 10 years and five months in filing the claim petition, the application deserved to be dismissed and the same stood dismissed accordingly. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated those very arguments what were put-forth by his counsel before the Railway Claims Tribunal. Undeniably and indisputedly, the claim petition came to be filed after ten years and five years of the expiry of period of limitation. The appellant was statutorily required to file the claim petition within a period of one year. The medical certificates filed by the appellant before the Tribunal are found to have been issued by the Ayurved Doctor and are related to the disease of the appellant pertaining to year 1999 and 2001. It is not proved that the appellant remained under a mental agony or stress or depression during the year 1991 to 1999, for want of evidence in this regard. Albeit, there is a tangible evidence with regard to accident the appellant met on 9th September, 1991, a mention of which is found in the entry of Rojnamcha duly maintained by Government Police Station Bharatpur. It further tangibly emerges from the entries that the appellant injured Shailesh Kumar Sharma slipped from the footboard of the Janta Express Train 23 Down and sustained injuries in both the legs. It is also proved that his one leg below the knee was amputated by the Doctor but the appellant has utterly failed to explain the delay of ten years and five months in filing the claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the application and rightly gainsaid to condone the inordinate delay of 10 years and five months. I do not find any ground so as to pass an order in favour of the appellant, as he has utterly failed to make out a case for interference. The impugned order is found to be just and apposite and suffers from no infirmity. Hence, the appeal being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed. 5. For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and the same being bereft of any merit, stands dismissed.