THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1130 OF 2008 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.108 of 2000, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Section 17 (2) of the Act to condone the delay of 1472 days in filing the claim application, was dismissed. 2. The appellant in the appeal is the petitioner, and the respondent in the appeal is the respondent, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner filed the Interlocutory Application stating that he was working as Police Constable in Jeedimetla, Hyderabad and used to go to his duty from Nawandgi to Hyderabad by train holding II class monthly season ticket. On 22.10.1995 in the afternoon, in order to go to Hyderabad from Nawandgi to attend his duty, he boarded train No.359, Wadi – Hyderabad passenger in general compartment holding II class monthly season ticket. While he was travelling in the said train, he accidentally fell down from the running train near cabin in the yard of Nawandgi railway station due to jerks of the train and he went under the wheels of the train resulting in amputation of his both legs. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Tandur by the railway staff. From there he was referred to Osmania General Hospital. He was not having knowledge about his right to claim compensation in a railway accident and that he recently came to know about his right to claim compensation. Hence, the Interlocutory Application. 4. The railways filed written statement denying the averments made in the application including the alleged fall and stating that the petitioner was not a bona fide passenger; that the delay of 1472 days is abnormal and cannot be condoned and hence, it prayed to dismiss the Interlocutory Application. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following point for consideration: “Whether the petitioner has made out sufficient cause for the condonation of delay of 1472 days?” 6. After considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that as the petitioner was an educated person working as Police Constable, it cannot be said that he was ignorant of his right to claim compensation, and accordingly, dismissed the Interlocutory Application. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the petitioner. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the order passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner contended that since the appellant is an illiterate, he could not file the claim application in time; that the appellant does not know that a claim application has to be filed within one year from the date of incident; that the appellant lost his two legs in the untoward incident and hence, she prays to condone the delay in filing the claim application. 9. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the respondent/railways contended that the alleged untoward incident had taken place in the year 1995; that the present application is filed before the Tribunal in the year 2000; that the delay has not been properly explained at all; that therefore, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the application; that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Section 17 (2) of the Act reads thus: “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), an application may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1) if the applicant satisfies the Claims Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.” 11. In Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act, the period of limitation in filing a claim application is one year from the date of accident. The word ‘sufficient cause’ in Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act has not been defined but it must mean a cause, which is beyond the control of the person approaching the Court. If a person is prevented by a sufficient reason or cause, then it can be said to be a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 17 (2) of the Act. There should not be any negligence or inaction on the part of the applicant in making an application for the purpose of claiming damages under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident. In an application for condonation of delay, it is the duty of the applicant to place all necessary materials before the Tribunal for explaining the delay showing that there has been sufficient cause entitling him for condonation of delay. 12. As seen from the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is stated that the appellant was not having knowledge about his right to claim compensation under the Railways Act and that he recently came to know about his right to claim compensation. The appellant not having knowledge about his right to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 by itself is not a ground to condone the abnormal delay of 1472 days in filing the claim application. Whether to condone the delay in filing a claim application under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, or not is exclusively within the discretion of the Tribunal. That has to be exercised judiciously after recording the reasons. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant being a Police Constable and not an illiterate, would have approached the Tribunal within the time prescribed under law to claim the damages. The present application does not indicate any sufficient cause so as to entertain the claim application for compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon an unreported decision of this Court between P.Buchaiah v. Union of India in C.R.P.No.4284 of 2009, dated 19.02.2010, wherein it is held thus: “It is to be noticed that the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is a beneficial legislation and the courts shall adopt a liberal view to see that the purpose of the Act is subserved. In this case, the case of the claimant is that he is an illiterate and that he has no knowledge about the filing of the case before the Tribunal for compensation and that after he came to know about the filing of the case, he filed the claim petition. Rebutting these averments, the Railways did not file any counter before the Tribunal. In my considering view, having regard to the facts and circumstances and as the Railways failed to file any counter before the Tribunal, the delay ought to have been condoned in order to do substantial justice. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the impugned order is set aside. The Tribunal shall number the claim petition and proceed in accordance with law.” The above decision has no application to the present facts of the case in view of the fact that the petitioner therein was an illiterate. 14. Similarly, learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon another unreported decision of this Court between Smt. Radhamoney Gangadharan Nair and others v. Union of India in C.M.A.No.127 of 2003, dated 23.08.2005, wherein it is held thus: “…., but the fact remains that she has made a representation before the Railway Minister and subsequently, she was advised to file a claim application in Railway Tribunal, Ernakulam. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the delay has been properly explained and I am also satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for such delay.” The above decision also has no application to the facts of the present case because in the present case, the appellant had not made any application before the railway administration or before any other authority seeking damages for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident. So, the above decisions are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the point in this case. Since the sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 1472 days in filing the claim application has not been made out by the appellant, in the absence of any explanation, there are no grounds to condone the delay. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 22, 2011 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1130 OF 2008 Between: Pallepu Laxmaiah .....APPELLANT AND Union of India ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1130 OF 2008 September 22, 2011 MD