IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 27-01-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3680 OF 2004 Between: P. Krishna Murthy. --- Appellant/ Applicant. AND The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway NIlayam, Secunderabad. --- Respondent/ Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3680 OF 2004 ORDER: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, is directed against the order dated 29- 06-2004 passed in I.A. No.389 of 2002 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal at Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), 2. The appellant is the petitioner and the respondent is the respondent in I.A. No.389 of 2002. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner filed I.A. No.389 of 2002 to condone delay of 511 days in filing his claim application. The claim of the petitioner is that while he was traveling by train No.367, Kazipet – Secunderabad passenger, on 19-04-2000 he slipped and fell down from the train accidentally and received injuries, but as he got no knowledge at the outset of his right to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and subsequently he came to know about the same through his friend N. Ramesh on 08-08-2002 thereupon he engaged an Advocate to take up the matter. Hence, the application. 4. The respondent filed counter opposing the application and claiming that ignorance of law would be no excuse and the petitioner failed to place satisfactory evidence to uphold his claim and each day’s delay caused in filing the application need to be explained and ultimately prayed to dismiss the application. 5. The Tribunal dismissed the application holding that the applicant happened to be an educated person to believe that having no knowledge he failed to file the claim application before the Tribunal in time and he failed to explain each day’s delay to condone the delay of 511 days and there was negligence on his part to file the application in time and so on. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been preferred. 6. Now the points for determination are : 1. Whether sufficient grounds are shown in order to condone the delay of 511 days caused in filing the claim application? 2. Whether the Tribunal considered the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusion? 3. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is sustainable or not? 7. Point No.1: It is pertinent to note that the petitioner is said to have involved in a train accident occurred on 19-04-200 and sustained severe injuries. If that is true, the petitioner should have taken necessary precautions to file necessary claim application before the concerned authority, unless he got no knowledge about the same which prevented him from doing so under different circumstances. No doubt, ignorance of law is no excuse but the factual aspect which might have occurred with regards to taking necessary action at the outset should be taken into consideration here. Examining the relevant factors, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the claim of the petitioner. 8. However, in the circumstances enumerated the condonation of 511 days of delay caused in filing the application, in a way may cause prejudice to the respondent ultimately. Therefore, it is necessary to see that no interest will be awarded for the period prior to the registration of the Appeal on the amount of compensation, if any, awarded in the claim application ultimately. 9. Accordingly the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed with a direction that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the compensation, if any awarded in the claim application only from the date of registration of the application and not before that. There shall be no order as to costs. Further, the Railway Claims Tribunal at Secunderabad is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as the matter pertains to the year 2002. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. Date: 27-01- 2011. DSH