In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 1779 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: May 29, 2009 Zahir Abas Khan .. Petitioner Vs. Union of India and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J The applicant-petitioner Zahir Abas Khan filed a claim petition seeking compensation under the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 (herein referred as 'the Act') for the injuries sustained by him in the accident which occurred on 15.6.2003. In the ordinary course, he was to file the petition for compensation within one year from the date of accident i.e. up to 15.6.2004. However, the claim petition was filed on 16.11.2005, as such the claim petition was accompanied by an application under Section 17 (2) of the Act. After adjudication, the Railway Claim Tribunal declined to condone the delay. The discharge certificate as produced by the petitioner as issued by Guru Nanak Hospital, reveals that the petitioner's condition was fair at the time of discharge on 1.8.2003 and thereafter he is shown to be admitted in the Government Medical College and Hospital, Jammu, on the very next day i.e. on 2.8.2003. The Tribunal has observed that the said admission could not be connected with the discharge certificate as the admission record maintained in the Jammu Hospital is in the name of Abas Khan, whereas the record maintained in the hospital at Mumbai reveals his name as Zahir Abas Khan. Even if it is presumed that the record of admission in the Government Medical College and Hospital, Jammu, relates to the petitioner, even then the applicant was discharged from the said hospital on 27.9.2003 and thereafter there is no evidence if he was admitted in any other Civil Revision No. 1779 of 2009 -2- *** hospital. The petitioner had not explained the reasons for not moving the application for compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal from 27.9.2003 up to 21.11.2005. Nonetheless the court should adopt a liberal approach in condoning the delay for advancing the cause of justice but the provisions of law require that the petitioner is obliged to explain the sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the conscience of the court that he could not file the application for compensation on account of the reasons beyond his control. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he has been taking treatment after 27.9.2003 but from the medical record as produced by the petitioner it could be observed that he was under outdoor treatment after 27.9.2003, therefore, no reasons could be assigned to him for not coming to engage the counsel or deputing some one from his family for initiating the action, but he failed to do so. As regards the other contention, that certificate Ex.P1 issued by the Government Hospital, at J & K, certifying that the petitioner was suffering from 90% disability as such the delay of 526 days in filing the application could be condoned on that ground. The court is not to examine as to what disability the petitioner has suffered, but the court has to examine what are the sufficient grounds for condoning the delay, whether there are sufficient reasons beyond the control of the petitioner obstructing him to file the petition. Records reveal that the petitioner was discharged on 27.9.2003, thereafter there is no medical record whereby, he remained admitted in the hospital so as he was prevented from going to the court for filing the petition. Nevertheless, it may be a benevolent legislation but when a statutory period as provided for initiating action stands expired, purely suffers from delay and laches then the equity does not come at his rescue. But in the present case, delay in filing the petition is sherely attributable to him as there is nothing serious which prevented him to put the law in motion within time. But, in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, he was discharged on 27.9.2003, therefore, he could go to the court for lodging the claim petition at any time thereafter. Civil Revision No. 1779 of 2009 -3- *** As such, I am not satisfied if there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay. The trial court appears to have appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. May 29, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge