Gargia @ Gargi v. UOI & Anr

V.B.GUPTA, J. bhatti

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI FAO No.229/2008 % Judgment reserved on: 23rd October, 2009 Judgment delivered on: 3rd November, 2009 1. Smt. Gargia & Gargi W/o Late Sh. Kallu 2. Ms. Sunita, D/o Late Sh. Kallu. 3. Ms. Santosh, D/o Late Sh. Kallu. 4. Ms. Anita (Minor), D/o Late Sh. Kallu. 5. Master Ravi (Minor), S/o Late Sh. Kallu. 6. Ms. Vineeta (Minor), D/o Late Sh. Kallu. Appellants No. 4 to 6 Through their mother & Natural Guardian Smt. Gargia Presently At: H. No. B-1724, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52 ….Appellants Through: Mr. N. K. Gupta, Adv. Versus Union of India, Through General Manager, Northern Railways, Baroda House. ….Respondent. Through: Mr. P. K. Dey with Mr. Kaushik Dey, Advs. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. Present appeal has been filed by appellants against judgment dated 30th May, 2008 of Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi (for short as "Tribunal"). Vide impugned judgment application under Section 17 (2) of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act (for short as "Act") filed by the appellants was dismissed. 2. Appellants have filed claim petition for compensation against respondent on account of death of Late Kallu, who died in an untoward train accident on 18th July, 2006. Along with it, application for condonation of delay was also filed, in which it is stated, that appellants were under deep sorrow due to untimely death of husband of appellant no. 1 and father of appellants" no. 2 to 6. Appellant no. 1 visited GRP, Faridabad number of times to know about preparation of the inquest report but they did not give any satisfactory reply. After numerous visits, police of GRP/Faridabad supplied few documents on 18th June, 2007. 3. Thereafter, appellant no. 1, approached an advocate Sh. Sanjay Adhana at District Court, Faridabad and handed over all documents which were demanded by him. That Advocate told her that he has prepared the case and got the signatures of appellant no. 1, on various documents and stated that he will file the case within one year. He further told appellants, that they need not come and he will inform them about the progress of the case. However, that advocate never informed appellants about progress of the case. On 20th February, 2008, appellant no. 1 demanded the case number and next date of hearing from her counsel but he refused to give the same. Thereafter, appellant no. 1 demanded her file and said advocate supplied few documents. After this, appellants contacted the present counsel who filed the present petition. There is a delay of eight months and three days in filing this petition. This delay is neither deliberate nor intentional, rather it is due to the reasons stated above. Appellants would suffer irreparable loss if delay is not condoned, especially when rights and interest of minor appellants are involved. 4. In reply, it is stated by respondent that story of the appellants being duped by her previous counsel cannot be accepted in absence of any proof of the same. If any such illegal practice ever happened, the appropriate forum for lodging complaint against such counsel would have been the Bar Council. In absence of the same, it is nothing but an attempt to mislead this Court by concealing material facts. Appellants have failed to give concrete and justifiable reasons for not making the application within time. Thus, no ground for condonation of delay is made out. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for appellants that appellants are poor and illiterate villagers and they did not have the knowledge of filing the claim petition within one year. They handed over all the documents to their counsel, who assured them he will file the petition but unfortunately, said advocate did not prepare the case nor he filed the claim petition before Tribunal. Appellants cannot be punished for the wrong commit