MFA 254/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H. BARUAH Heard Mr. I. A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Goswami, learned standing counsel, N.F. Railway, the respondent herein. This appeal is preferred again the order dated 9-6-2010 passed by the Railway Cl aims Tribunal, whereby and whereunder the application under Section 17 of the Ra ilway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987(for short RCT Act) seeking condonation of delay in filing the connected application for compensation has been dismissed. On account of death of Sabi Nath Kahar, S/o. Late Mongra Kahar, a Railway employ ee in train accident on 22-04-2005, petitioner, Smt. Santi Kahar being the wife of the deceased filed an application under Section 16 of the RCT Act claiming co mpensation along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 17 of the Act for condoning the delay of 1 year 9 months 2 days in the filing the connected application for compensation. In the application it was contended that on the death of her husband on 22-04-20 05 due to railway accident she was searching for a job in the railway department . It was also contended in the application that she was ignorant about the estab lishment of Railway Claims Tribunal at Guwahati. Having known to the fact of such establishment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, t he petitioner handed over all the relevant documents to an advocate for filing a claim case before the Railway Claims Tribunal. However, the advocate concerned did not care to file such a case and ultimately she finding no other alternative approached the tribunal by filing an application for compensation along with an application for condonation of delay. Before the Tribunal it was contended that since the petitioner was ignorant abou t the existence/establishment of Railway Claims Tribunal at Guwahati, she was un able to approach the Tribunal for the aforesaid relief of compensation on accoun t of death of her husband due to train accident. The Tribunal after hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and the grounds contended therein did not find it appropriate to condone the delay of 1 year 9 months 2 days and accordingly dismissed the application. It is specifically obse rved by the tribunal that the reasons of delay explained by the applicant are no t sufficient for condoning the delay so occurred. The delay appears to have occurred as a result of searching of a job in the rail way department by the applicant and also on account of ignorance about the exist ence/establishment of Railway Claims Tribunal. It was observed that during that period the applicant was not vigilant about her own cause and on this ground alo ne, the application under Section 17 of the RCT Act has been dismissed. It is submitted by Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellant that the appl icant did place true facts before the tribunal that she was ignorant of existenc e/establishment of Railway Claims Tribunal at Guwahati. The advocate, who was en gaged by her also failed to file any case for compensation on account of death o f her husband. The Tribunal, therefore, ought to have considered the application under Section 17 of the RCT Act and allow the same so as to enable the applican t to proceed with the claim application. It is also argued by Mr. Talukdar, lear ned counsel for the appellant that the ground assigned by the Tribunal in the or der of rejection of the application is not sufficient, cogent and convincing and this court therefore, may consider the case of the petitioner and allow the app eal so as to enable the appellant to proceed with the claim. Mr. Goswami, learned standing counsel, N. F. Railway, however, resisted the appl ication contending inter alia that nothing error, illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in rejecting the application under Section 17 of the RCT Act. It is also argued by Mr. Goswami that the grounds assigned in the application that she was searching for a job after the death of her husband and her ignorance in regard to the existence/establishment of the Railway Claims Tribunal at Guwahat i do not constitute cogent and sufficient grounds to condone the delay of 1 year 9 months 2 days. It is, therefore, submitted by Mr. Goswami, learned standing c ounsel for the N.F. Railway that the appeal deserves dismissal in view of the or der passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal. I have given my anxious consideration to the grounds contended in the applicatio n and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel of either party. On accoun t of death of her husband, a railway employee in a railway accident, the petitio ner was searching for a job in the railway department. As per records, she becam e successful in procuring a job in the railway department. The second ground tha t has been pleaded in the application for condonation of delay that she was igno rant about the existence/establishment of Railway Claims Tribunal and when havin g had the knowledge of such establishment, she handed over all the documents to an advocate for filing a claim application before the Tribunal for compensation on account of death of her husband. However, advocate concerned did not file any case, whatsoever and sat tight over the matter. The applicant herein appears to be rustic lady, who does not have any knowledge of the existence of the Railway Claims Tribunal at Guwahait. These two grounds conjointly, encourage the delay of 1 year 9 months 2 days, which would have been the cogent and sufficient groun ds for condoning the delay in filing the connected application. These two ground s that have been pleaded in the condonation petition appear to this court are su fficient and cogent to condone the delay of 1 year 9 months 2 days. The learned Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal, therefore, appears to have co mmitted error and illegality in rejecting the application under section 17 of th e RCT Act. The impugned order, therefore, stands set aside and quashed. The appeal stands allowed. No cost.