JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant, who was the applicant in OA II(U) 135/2011 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, has filed this appeal impugning the order dated 18.04.2012 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench rejecting the appellant’s application for condontion of delay under Section 17(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, and consequentially, not admitting the appellant’s application in OA II(U) 135/2011 dismissing this application as being time barred. 2. The facts necessary for consideration of the appeal are: the appellant while traveling from Yadgiri Railway station to Narayanpet by Udyan Express train was involved in an untoward incident and because of resulting injury, he suffered amputation below knee, and therefore, presented the claim application in OA II(U)135/2011 under the provisions of Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 r/w. Sections 124-A and 125 of the Indian Railway Act, 1989. However, such application was filed beyond the period of limitation provided under Section 17(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Therefore, the appellant filed an application under Section 17(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking condonation of delay in filing the application. This application, was not accompanied by the affidavit of the appellant, but was accompanied by the affidavit of a counsel, Sri Santosh Kumar Verma. 3. The Tribunal, taking note of the fact that the appellant had not filed any affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay and the affidavit filed by a counsel, concluded that the reasons assigned for the delay were flimsy and not convincing, and rejected the application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant had not filed necessary documents like journey ticket, police complaint about the untoward incident and medical records from a specialist to the police authority, and the Tribunal concluded that the reasons advanced by the counsel did not constitute sufficient reasons, but also were frivolous and far from satisfaction. Consequentially, dismissed appellant’s claim application as being time barred without admitting the appellant’s application. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the Counsel for the respondents, and perused the records. 5. Consequentially, dismissed appellant’s claim application as being time barred without admitting the appellant’s application. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the Counsel for the respondents, and perused the records. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued in support of the appeal emphasizing that the delay in filing the application was only 10 (ten) days; that the appellant was at the time of the untoward incident working as a coolie, that the appellant was illiterate; that, after prolonged hospitalization and medical treatment, the appellant had bona fide entrusted the filing of the claim petition to his counsel, who could not present the claim petition within the time allowed because the records prepared were misplaced at the time when the counsel was shifting his office under immediate circumstances as the building which housed their office was being demolished by the revenue authorities; and that in the aforementioned circumstances, neither the delay could be called inordinate nor the appellant callous or negligent in filing the application. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the appeal emphasizing that even the present appeal is belated and the Tribunal by a well reasoned order has held that the reasons canvassed by the appellant were not only insufficient, but also frivolous and far from truth, and Tribunal, in the light of the different decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, the Limitation Act and the provisions of the other Acts, has rightly concluded that the reasons assigned are flimsy and frivolous. 7. In view of the rival submissions, the question that arises for consideration is, whether, in the circumstances of the appellant, the reasons canvassed by the appellant, would be sufficient reasons as contemplated under Section 17(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act to condone the delay in filing the claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987? 8. 8. It is seen from the records that the affidavit of an advocate was filed in support of the application for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the claim application stating that the appellant had engaged the said counsel to present the claim petition, but the counsel could not present such petition, though prepared, within time because the records prepared at the instance of the appellant were misplaced in the counsel’s office while shifting his office as a consequence of demolition drive undertaken by the civil authorities in Raichur town. 9. It is asserted by the appellant that he is a coolie and that he is an illiterate. Though the respondent would dispute the alleged untoward incident, loss of limb as a consequence of injury suffered in the alleged untoward incident and the appellant’s right to claim compensation, the respondent has not disputed that the appellant is a coolie and an illiterate person. If this be so, the fact that the appellant has not filed an affidavit accompanying the application for condonation of delay must not be fatal to his claim and the application for condonation of delay cannot be rejected on this ground. Insofar as the entrustment of the case by the appellant to his counsel, and the reasons for the counsel filing the petition beyond the prescribed period of limitation, the counsel, who would be the appropriate person to speak about the same, has filed the affidavit before the Tribunal, and the counsel, Sri Santish Kumar Verma has also filed an affidavit in this appeal in similar lines, reiterating the reasons. The counsel, in his affidavit, has stated that the application, which was prepared at the instance of the appellant, was not filed within time because those papers were misplaced while shifting his office and he was constrained to shift his office under immediate circumstance because of the demolition undertaken by the local authority. The delay in filing of the claim application is only 10 days. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the reasons assigned are acceptable, and in any event, given the circumstances of the appellant, and the delay is 10 days, it cannot be held that the appellant has been callous or negligent in his conduct, and therefore, the reasons assigned by the appellant through his counsel would constitute sufficient reasons. 10. 10. For these reasons, it would be just and reasonable to condone the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 18.04.2012, allow the application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition before the Tribunal and restore the application in OA II(U) 135/2011 for adjudication on merits. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.04.2012 on I.A.No.208/2011 in OA II U 135/2011 is set aside, the application I.A.No.208/2011 is allowed and the Tribunal is requested to take appellant’s application in OA II (U)135/2011 on board for adjudication on merits in accordance with law. Accordingly, appeal is disposed of. No costs.