HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1085 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1989 (for short “the Act”), is directed against the order made in I.A. No.306 of 2001 dated 18-03-2005 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad. 2. Appellant is the applicant and respondent is the respondent in the O.A. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.A. 4. It appears, the applicant suffered a railway accident, wherein he lost his left leg and left hand. According to him, after the accident, he is physically crippled and he cannot walk and sit on his own. His condition from the date of accident till date is pathetic. He lost his life economically and socially. According to him, there is no person to lookafter him and to lookafter his case. In fact, he requires two additional attenders to carry him. Further, it had taken more than three years to treat his injuries and he had undergone several operations in the private hospitals. Still wounds are not healed and he is getting recurring body pains. Therefore, there was delay in approaching the Tribunal and filing the claim petition. Thus, delay of 1536 days occurred in filing claim petition and it is neither willful nor wanton, and therefore, liable to be condoned. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the railways – respondent, it was stated that condonation of delay of 1536 days on equitable grounds is one for rejection, in view of the Apex Court decision in P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala[1], wherein it was held that law of limitation has to be strictly applied and the same cannot be extended merely on equitable grounds. 6. In the case on hand, admittedly, accident, as such, is not denied. However, the Tribunal relying upon the decision referred supra, dismissed the delay application holding as under: “It is to be seen whether the reasons mentioned by the Applicant for condoning the delay are satisfactory or not. There is a delay of 1536 days in filing the original application. It is true that the length of period of delay to be condoned is not the sole criteria for condoning the delay. What is material is the cause shown by the Applicant to condone the delay. IN this case the delay sought to be condoned is for a period of about 5 years. The Applicant alleged that he undertook the treatment of the injury for a period of 3 years and during this period several operations were performed. The petitioner did not file any documentary evidence in support of this averment. He only filed a medical certificate of the Govt. Hospital showing that he was admitted in the hospital on 13-5-95 and discharged on 16-3-95 and his amputating of one leg was done. This medical certificate shows that the petitioner remained in the hospital for 3 days only. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner in support of his allegation that he remained hospitalized later on in any hospital or any operations were performed. Thus, a long delay of 1536 days as (Sic. is) remained totally unexplained. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the case of Satrasala Rajamma vs. UOI decided on 11-2-02 by the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in Appeal against Order No.1925 of 2001. We have perused this ruling. The ruling is distinguishable from the facts of the present case and is not helpful to the petitioner. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the Respondent ha (Sic. has) filed a Photostat copy of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court given in the case of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2276 in which it has been held while condoning the delay the court has to apply its judicial discretion and it can not be condoned only on equitable ground.” 7. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant, Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, strenuously contended that this is a case, where the applicant became totally crippled and he can neither move by himself nor by way of any other mode, as he lost his right leg as well as right hand and further he is a poor person, as such, it was difficult for him to reach the Tribunal within a reasonable time, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have taken a lenient view and condoned the delay. 9. Whereas, learned counsel for the railways – respondent supported the order passed by the Tribunal and stated that the claim itself is a stale one and the delay caused in approaching the Tribunal is not explained properly and no sufficient cause was shown, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the application of the applicant. 10. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. 11. It appears, applicant became crippled due to the railway accident. He lost his left leg as well as left hand. Expecting any diligence from a person, who became physically and mentally crippled, is most unreasonable. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the physical condition of the applicant. He had categorically stated that he cannot move on his own and even to carry him from one place to other, he requires two personal attenders. Therefore, I am of the opinion that Tribunal has made a pedantic approach in dismissing the application to condone the delay of 1536 days. This is a case, where it has to be looked from a different angle and the delay caused in approaching the Tribunal needs to be condoned for giving opportunity to the applicant to pursue the matter on merits before the Tribunal. 12. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal in I.A. No.306 of 2001 dated 18-03-2005 is set aside and the application is accordingly allowed. The Tribunal is directed to take up the claim application and proceed with the same as per law. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ C.V. RAMULU, J July 8, 2010. PV [1] AIR 1998 SC 2276