IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.112 of 2011 1. Most. Kiran Devi wife of Late Sachindra Singh 2. Mithu Kumar, Son of Late Sachindra Singh 3. Golu Kumar, Son of Late Sachindra Singh 4. Fruiti Kumari D/O Late Sachindra Singh All residents of village- Kusarhi, P.S. Bihata, District-Patna (Applicants in Tribunal) ---- --------------- Appellants. Versus The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur(Bihar) ------ Respondent/Respondent ----------- 05 08-07-2011 Heard Sri Anant Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Arvind Ujjwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent. The present appeal has been preferred under Section-23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,1987 ( hereinafter referred to as “the Railway Act”) with a prayer to direct the Respondent/ East Central Railway to make payment of interest on the compensation amount of Rs.4 Lacs from the date of filing of the claim petition, whereas the Railway Claims Tribunal ,Patna ( hereinafter referred to as “the Railway Tribunal”) while allowing the claim petition had directed the Respondent to make payment of compensation amount of Rs. 4 Lacs within a period of two months from the date of order, failing which the Respondent was directed to pay interest on the compensation amount @ 9 % per annum from the date of order i.e. order dated 4.6.2008 passed in Claim Case No. 000163 / 2004. In this case , an Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No.1293 of 2011 has also been filed with a prayer to condone the delay in filing the appeal . The order in appeal was passed on 4.6.2008, whereas the appeal was filed on 14.02.2011 before this Court. Accordingly more than two 2 years five months delay has occurred in preferring the appeal. In the petition for condonation of delay, the Court is of the opinion that no cogent reason has been assigned. In this case , a very short limitation petition has been filed and , as such, it would be appropriate to quote the same, which is follows: 1. “That this is an application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal against the order/ Judgment dated 4.6.2008, Limitation has been expired on 2.9.2008 and appeal is being filed on 9.2.2011 i.e. about two years and five months delay. 2. That the appellant has not moved in the Hon’ble High Court for condonation of delay in the matter earlier. 3. That the appellant is the only one female member in the family to make pairvi in case and consult to the lawyer. 4. That the counsel of the appellant received the informant and documents of the order and he sent a letter to the appellant about the decision of the case. But due to fault of postal department the said letter was not delivered to the appellant. Any how the appellant got the information about disposal of her case. She came to Patna and consulted with her lawyer.” 5. That the learned counsel for the appellant advised her to file an appeal in the Hon’ble High Court for getting interest on decreed amount. Thereafter she went to her house to arrange money and she fell in ill. Hence she could not come in time to file this appeal. 6. That from the date of knowledge of the order the appeal is within time. 7. That there is no laches or fault on the part of the appellant 8. That if the limitation has not condoned the appellants shall put in irreparable loss” 3 Sri Arvind Ujjwal, learned counsel for the Respondent has raised serious objection on the petition for condoning the delay. He submits that in compliance with the order passed by the Railway Tribunal, payment has already been made to the claimants, which was accepted by the claimants/appellants without any objection and, as such, the claimant was satisfied with the compensation amount. However, after noticing an order passed by this Court in another case i.e. M.A.No.337 of 2008 on 13.4.2010, whereby this Court had directed to make payment of compensation along with interest, which was to be calculated from the date of filing of the claim petition, the appellants approached this Court with the present appeal. Accordingly, he has prayed for rejection of the Memo of Appeal on the ground of inordinate delay in approaching the court. In view of the facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that after the order which was passed long back on 4.6.2008, the appellants without raising any objection accepted the compensation amount and after such a long time without assigning any plausible explanation for delay in approaching this Court, the Court is of the opinion that the appeal can be rejected on the ground of limitation itself. The ground set forth in the limitation petition, which has been indicated above is sufficient to show that no plausible explanation has been made. Moreover, the compensation amount was already received by the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal stands rejected on the ground of limitation itself. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J. )