THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDAIAH C.R.P.NO.4284 OF 2009 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.4.2007 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad in I.A.No.347 of 2006 in INDDR NO. 285 of 2006 in refusing to condone the delay of 693 days in filing the claim petition, the claimant, who is the father of the deceased, filed the present revision. 3. The case of the claimant in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condone petition is that his son P. Mahesh, resident of Nagasala village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District went to Tirupathi for Darshan and while returning on the intervening night of 3/4.6.2004 after purchasing a second class train journey ticket from Renigunta to Guntakal, he boarded the train no.6010 Chennai – Mumbai Mail in the early hours of 4.6.2003 to travel up to Guntakal and from there to Jadcherla by a connecting train. While so, his son accidentally fell down from the train in the early hours of 4.6.2003 between Ontimitta and Bhakrapeta Railway Station, due to jerks of the running train and that immediately he was shifted to hospital and while undergoing treatment at Government General Hospital, Kurnool, he died on 14.6.2003 at 02-15 hours. His case is that he is an illiterate and has no knowledge about the filing of the petition for compensation before the Tribunal under Sction124-A of the railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 for untoward incident and that recently on 20.4.2006 he came to know about the filing of the case for compensation from their villager and that immediately he contacted his Advoaate on 26.4.2006 and entrusted the matter for filing the case and in these process a delay of 693 days has occurred and hence he sought to condone the delay. 4. The respondent – Railways did not file any counter before the Tribunal below and only filed counter before this court, the tenor of which is that the reasons offered by the claimant does not constitute ‘sufficient cause’ and that the relevant records are not available with the Railways and further no ticket was there with the deceased as per the FIR and, therefore, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the delay condone petition and the same does not warrant interference. 5. By the impugned order the Tribunal holding that the reasons advanced by the claimant are not convincing to condone the delay, dismissed the I.A. Hence the present revision. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent –railways did not file any counter and their standing counsel only made oral submissions that the FIR is clear that the deceased was traveling without a ticket and the court below without considering the reasons advanced by the petitioner, dismissed the petition and hence the same requires to be set aside. He also relied on the judgments of learned single judges of this court in CMA.No.1418/2002 dated 19.12.2003 and CMA.No.127/2003 dated 23.8.2005 and contended that this court condoned the delay of 2190 and 1259 days respectively in filing the claim petitions before the Railways Claims Tribunal and, therefore, sought to condone the delay by setting the impugned order. 7. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent – Railways submitted that the claimant did not explain the day to day delay and as the reasons were not convincing, the Tribunal below rightly dismissed the petition and the same does not warrant any interference. 8. From the material available on record, it could be seen that the reason for delay in filing the claim petition before the Tribunal is that the claimant is not aware about the filing of the petition for claiming compensation as he was an illiterate and that immediately after coming to know from a villager of his village, he approached the Advocate and entrusted the matter and got the claim petition filed and in this process a delay of 693 days has occurred and therefore, he sought to condone the delay. 9. 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. 10. The revision is accordingly allowed. No costs. AVS ----------------------------- 19-02-2010