IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWELFTH (12TH) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5900 of 2010 Between: Union of India, rep. by General Manager South central Railway, Secunderabad … Petitioner And: Mekanthoti Mohan Rao & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5900 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 08.11.2010 in MA No.40 of 2010 in DDR No.37 of 2010 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, wherein the said application filed by the respondents herein under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 2578 days in filing the claim application was allowed on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed claim application seeking compensation for the death of their deceased son Madhu Babu, who died in railway accident that occurred on 09.02.2002. The said application was however filed on 02.03.2010 with a delay of 2578 days along with the application MA No.40 of 2010 for condoning the said delay. According to the respondents/claimants they approached one Tanniru Srinivasa Rao, Advocate of Guntur and entrusted the matter to him in the year 2002 and the said advocate prepared the case and obtained their signatures and informed them that the papers would be filed before the Tribunal and that even after eight years, they did not have any communication from the advocate and on enquiry, recently they came to know that the Advocate is no more. It is further pleaded by them that on further enquiry with the registers of the Tribunal, they came to know that the case was not filed at all. The petitioner herein filed counter, opposing the said petition on the ground that the delay is not properly explained and the crucial documents like railway ticket, inquest report etc. have also not been filed. 4. By impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the application on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- accepting the explanation offered by the claimant for the delay. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed by the Railway Department. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the claimants have stated that they entrusted the matter to one Sri Tanniru Srinivasa Rao, Advocate in the year 2002 and they were under the impression that the case was filed and only just prior to filing of the present application, they came to know that the said Advocate is no more and the case was also not filed before the Tribunal. The said affidavit, does not however, disclose the date on which they approached the Advocate Sri Tanniru Srinivasa Rao, or the date on which they signed vakalath and other papers or even the date on which the said Advocate died and the date on which the claimants came to know about the same. Even according to them, the case was entrusted to the said advocate in the year 2002 and for about 8 years till 2010, they have not received any communication from the said Advocate. If really, they have entrusted the papers to the said Advocate in the year 2002 itself, there is absolutely no reason as to why they have not pursued the matter with the said Advocate and find out the stage of the case. According to the said affidavit, after entrusting the case, when they contacted the Advocate, he kept on saying that the case was filed and it would be ripe after some time as thousands of cases are pending before the Tribunal and so, they kept quite for some time. The affidavit does not disclose the dates or mode of such communication between the claimants and their Advocate. It is improbable and hard to believe that the claimants would have kept quiet for such a long period of 8 years after entrusting the matter, without bothering to know the stage of the case. During hearing of the revision, the claimants filed affidavit of Sri M. Suresh Babu, who was stated to be the junior colleague in the office of Sri Tanniru Srinivasa Rao. As per the said affidavit, the claimants have approached Sri T.Srinivasa Rao about 8 years back and entrusted the matter to him and subsequently, the claimants contacted the said Advocate number of times and Sri T. Srinivasa Rao, kept on saying that the case was filed before the Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad and it would take some time for the case to be taken up for hearing as thousands of cases are pending. It is seen from the said affidavit that the said Srinivasa Rao died on 11.06.2007 and that about 20 months back, the claimants approached him and enquired him about the said case and that he could not find any file in the office of his senior Advocate pertaining to the claimants. He further stated that subsequently he came to know that the case was not filed at all. 6. It is not a case where the case was filed before the Tribunal and that on account of death of the advocate Srinivasa Rao, it was not pursued by the claimants for want of information about the death of the Advocate. According to the claimants, they entrusted the papers to Sri Srinivasa Rao, Advocate and he told them that the case was already filed, though in fact, it was not filed. Sri Suresh Babu, junior Advocate, who gave affidavit in support of the claimants also states in his affidavit that the claimants contacted his senior number of times either on telephone or personally and met him, and his senior kept on saying that the case was filed before the Tribunal, Secunderabad and it was pending. Even the affidavit of Sri Sureshbabu is silent about the dates on which the claimants telephoned or personally met Sri Srinivasarao, Advocate. In fact, the claimants themselves did not say in their affidavit that they have telephoned or personally met Sri Srinivasa Rao. The affidavits of the claimants and also Sri Suresh Babu is to the effect of throwing blame on Sri Srinivasa Rao by saying that without filing the case before the Tribunal he went on giving false assurances that the case was in fact filed and it would take some time for coming up for hearing. Such conduct on the part of the claimants in seeking to throw blame on the counsel, who is no more, in a bid to cover up their own laches, cannot be appreciated. There is nothing on record to show that the claimants have entrusted the papers to Sri Srinivasa Rao, Advocate. Admittedly, no claim application was filed till 2010. In the absence of any material to show that the claimants approached Sri Srinivasa Rao, Advocate in the year 2002 and entrusted the papers to him even at that time, their plea that they were under the impression that the case was filed and they were awaiting the matter to reach hearing, cannot be countenanced. 7. Even assuming for a moment that the claimant in fact, entrusted the matter to Sri Srinivasarao, Advocate in the year 2002 and therefore they were under the impression that the case was filed, still there is total lack of diligence in pursuing the matter for a long period of 8 years which remains unexplained. Their claim that they were making enquiries with the Advocate and that he was informing them that the case was pending remains vague and baseless and in the absence of any dates of such communication being furnished and in the absence of anything in writing evidencing passage of such communication between the claimants and their counsel. The delay of 2578 days in filing the present claim application in the year 2010 in respect of the accident that occurred in 2002 cannot be easily condoned in the absence of satisfactory explanation. It is well established that the discretionary power of condoning the delay cannot be exercised in favour of a party, who is totally lacking in diligence and is guilty of laches and inaction. No prudent person of average diligence even if illiterate would have kept quiet for such a long period of 8 years without making any enquiry to know the stage or result of the case. The plea of the claimants that they are making enquiries with their Advocate and he kept on telling that the case was pending cannot be believed at all. 8. It is to be noted that the said Advocate died on 11.06.2007 as per the affidavit of Sri M. Suresh Babu. The question of claimants making enquiries with the said Advocate subsequent to 11.06.2007 does not arise. Further for the last three years from June 2007 till the date of filing of the present application, the claimants did not pursue the matter. Such conduct of the claimants, which is bereft of any prudence or diligence and on the other hand be-set with laches, does not justify the condonation of such huge delay of 2578 days in filing the claim application. The explanation offered by the claimants in support of the said delay is totally unsatisfactory and unacceptable. The impugned order, which seeks to condone the delay in the absence of any satisfactory explanation, is therefore unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 12.12.2011 bss