Lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLAATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1404 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3728 OF 2008 Smt.Prabhavati Kutty Shetty : Appellant versus Union of India through its General Manager, Western Railway Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 : Respondent. Mr.C M Jha for the Appellant. Ms.Shradha Chavan with Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Respondent. CORAM : C L PANGARKAR, J DATED : 21st JANUARY 2010 P.C. 1. Rule. By consent of the parties, rule returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the Respondent. 2. This First Appeal is preferred against the order passed by the Technical Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal whereby he rejected application for condonation of delay as well as the application for claiming damages. 3. The facts giving rise to this First Appeal are as under :- Deceased Abhinav was 18 years of age and was unmarried. It was alleged that on 31/01/2007 he was travelling in a local train from Mira Road to Kandivali. It is further alleged that due to over crowding in the train he was pushed out of the train and fell down due to which he suffered injuries and died. The mother of the deceased Abhinav therefore preferred an application for compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai. The said Application was also supported by an application for condonation of delay in preferring the said application for damages. 4. The learned Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal in stead of first hearing the application for condonation of delay, chose to go into the merits of the matter and found that there were no merits in the matter and as a result of that, without considering the question as to whether there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay or not, proceeded to reject the main application as well as application for condonation of delay. 5. This was done by the learned Member on the day on which the main application was presented. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant before me that the learned Member in fact should have first considered the question as to whether the delay in preferring the main application should or should not be condoned and there was no need for him to go into the merits of the matter. 7. I find substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant. The learned Member was not expected to go into the merits of the main application without first considering the application for condonation of delay. After going through the impugned order passed by the learned Member, I find that the learned Judge does not give single line reasoning as to why the delay should not be condoned in the matter. 8. In the circumstances the impugned order passed by the learned Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal suffers from impropriety as well as illegality. The same is therefore set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the Railway Claims Tribunal. On remand, the Railway Claims Tribunal shall first decide the application for condonation of delay and if it finds that there is sufficient ground for condoning the delay, it may then decide the main application. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. In the circumstances no order as to costs. The Civil Application No. 3728 of 2008 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. [C.L.PANGARKAR,J]