IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2759 OF 2001 Between: Tippani Durgaprasad ….. APPELLANT AND Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2759 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, (for short, “the Act”) is directed against the order, dated 27.04.2001, in I.A.No.219 of 1999 in D.D.R.No.3568 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Branch, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed to condone the delay of 222 days in preferring claim application was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. It is represented that the appellant could not obtain the medical certificate and the railway memo in time due to his illiteracy, and as such there was delay of 222 days in filing the claim application and he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. Under Section 17 (2) of the Act, the appellant has to satisfy the Tribunal that he has sufficient cause for not making the application within the prescribed time as in subsection (1) of Section 17 of the Act. It must mean a cause which is beyond the control of the party. For any reason, if the appellant is prevented from approaching the Court within the time prescribed, it can be said to be a sufficient cause. In this case, admittedly the appellant boy is aged about 20 years at the time of accident and sustained amputation of the left leg. Therefore, in such circumstances, it is not expected for him to rush to the Tribunal to file claim application. So, considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant, the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay in preferring the claim application. Amputation of left leg itself is a sufficient cause, because he was disabled to move from bed for several months. That aspect of the case has not been considered by the trial Court. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order. In view of the fact that the accident has taken place more than a decade back, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the claim application of the appellant within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J March 10, 2010 MD/YVL