ORDER : I.A. No. 1057 of 2017 This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 204 days in preferring the present appeal. 2. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent/Railway has opposed. 3. Heard. In view of the reasons assigned in paragraph nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the supporting affidavit, sufficient cause and reasonable explanation is made out, accordingly, the delay is condoned. 4. I.A. No. 1057 of 2017 stands allowed. M.A. No. 60 of 2011 : 5. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 12.12.2007 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Case no. TAU/RNC/1999/0016 whereby compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid as against the claim of Rs.4,00,000/-. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased Raman Prajapati was travelling on a valid ticket and was a bona-fide passenger in terms of Section 2 (29) of the Railways Act. That he died on 24.09.1998 due to accidental fall while travelling on train no. 2801 UP Purushottam Express. It is submitted by the counsel that as per the schedule of Railway Accidents and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules 1990, the statutory liability of the Railways is fixed at Rs.4,00,000/- (four lakhs) in case of death of a bona-fide passenger due to untoward incident, but, the said amount has been enhanced to Rs.8,00,000/- (eight Lakhs) as per Railway Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules, 2016 (for short to be referred as Amended Rules, 2016, hereinabove) and the claimants are entitled to get the benefit of enhanced compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (eight lakhs) as per the Amendment Rules of 2016. To buttress the argument learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of N. Parameswaran Pillai and Another Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2002) 4 SCC 306 . 7. Learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent/Railways has contended that the Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (one Lakh) as the deceased was an old person aged 70 years. Union of India and Another reported in (2002) 4 SCC 306 . 7. Learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent/Railways has contended that the Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (one Lakh) as the deceased was an old person aged 70 years. It is submitted that if the compensation is enhanced then, the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (four lakhs) as stipulated in the provisions of Railway Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules of 1990 and not the enhanced compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (eight lakhs) under the Amended Rules notified on 22.12.2016, because the untoward incident took place on 24.09.1998 and there is no provision for retrospective application of the amendment Rules, 2016. 8. Heard. In the decision of N. Parameswaran Pillai and Another (Supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, the ratio laid down in the case of Rathi Menon Vs. Union of India reported in 2001 (2) JCR 112 (SC) : (2001) 3 SCC 714 , has been reiterated and reference has been made to paras 28 and 29 of the Rathi Menon (Supra) which reads as under:- “28. The Central Government while changing the figures in compensation amount after an interval of a decade was only influenced by the desire to update the money value of the compensation. In other words, what you were to pay ten years ago to one person cannot be the same if it is paid today in the same figure of currency notes. It is for the purpose for meeting the reality that the Central Government changed the figures. 29. The unjust consequence resulting from the interpretation which the Division Bench placed can be demonstrated in another plane also. If a person who sustained injury in a railway accident or in an untoward incident was disabled form making an application immediately and he makes the application a few years hence, is he to get the compensation in terms of the money value which prevailed on the date of the accident? Suppose a Tribunal wrongly dismissed a claim after a few years of filing the application and the claimant approaches the High Court in appeal. Suppose a Tribunal wrongly dismissed a claim after a few years of filing the application and the claimant approaches the High Court in appeal. As it happens quite often now, some High Courts could take up such an appeal only after the lapse of many years and if the appeal is decided in favour of the claimant after so many years, what a pity if the amount awarded is only in terms of the figure indicated on the date of the accident.” 9. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the appellant had filed review application in 2008 for enhancement, of the award dated 12.12.2007, from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/- as per Rules of 1990. The review application was rejected by order dated 28.05.2010, which was impugned by filing this Miscellaneous Appeal in 2011, which was pending for removal of defects and on 05.04.2013, peremptory order was passed for removal of the defects within a week, but, it was not complied with, consequently, M.A. no. 60 of 2011, was dismissed for non-compliance of the order for removal of the defects. Thereafter, the petitioner/appellant filed restoration application being C.M.P. no. 49 of 2015 after a delay of nearly three years and the defects were removed on 07.02.2017, accordingly, M.A. no. 60 of 2011 was restored to its original file. It is amply clear that the appellant has not been diligent in prosecuting the case, however, keeping in view the beneficial scheme of the court, this court has shown enough indulgence in restoring M.A. no. 60 of 2011, despite the delay. The appeal has lingered since, 2011 on account of lackadaisical approach and the laches on the part of the appellant, hence, giving the benefit of enhanced compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (eight lakhs) in terms of the Amendment Rules of 2016, will be rewarding the appellant for his laches and fault in the attending facts and circumstances. 10. In view of the discussions made above the respondent/Railways is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (four lakhs) in terms of Railway Accidents and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules of 1990, with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the accident till payment less the amount, if any paid. The Respondent/Railways shall pay the compensation within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. The Respondent/Railways shall pay the compensation within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. In the result the appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.