P. Devadass, J.@mdashThe appellant, has directed this appeal as against the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench refusing to
condone the delay occasioned in filing Original Application No.51 of 2009 for claiming compensation for the death of her son in a railway
accident. Raja, her son, died on 27.5.2002. She sought for compensation for his death from the Railways by filing Original Application No.51 of
2009 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench on 3.4.2009. It is long after his death. She has stated her poor financial condition, her
mental agony and her difficulty in obtaining relevant documents as reasons for the delay.
2. The Tribunal referred to her averments in the affidavit filed in support of her application and came to the conclusion that the appellant has not
filed the application with true facts. Further, in view of the report of the Key man that her son lost his life on the railway track, concluded that on
merit also, she has no case. Thus, dismissed her delay condonation application and consequently, dismissed her Original Application also.
3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant has furnished reasons for the delay. Moreover, she is a widow and illiterate, as
she is an affected lady, she may be given an opportunity. With regard to the report of the Key man, evidence has to be adduced, the truth of his
report has to be gone into only during the main enquiry.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Railways would submit that the appellant has not came forward with true facts and that is why,
the Tribunal has rejected her delay condonation petition.
5. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the case records and the impugned order.
6. Admittedly, deceased Raja is one of the sons of Suseela, the appellant. He lost his life in Vyasarpadi, Chennai. Railways states that he died on
the Railway track. This incident has taken place on 27.5.2002. She had filed her application on 3.4.2009. There is 2136 days of delay in filing the
Original Application for compensation.
7. At one point of time, in these matters, the Courts have expected explanation for each day of delay. Length of delay was given a prominent
place. Now, there is a shift in this approach. Courts have adopted a liberal and pragmatic approach. Courts refrained from viewing the delay with
tinged glasses. At the same time, they did not allow vexatious and stale matters to enter the portals of Courts and take away the public time. Now,
in appropriate cases, Courts have considered even poverty and illiteracy are also sufficient grounds to condone the delay. It is to be noted that
refusal to condone the delay should not result in closing the doors of justice to real seekers of justice. It is also a matter of ""Access to Justice"".
What is important is whether there is a case to be explored. Now, it is not the length of time but substance matters. A meritorious case shall not be
denied adjudication on account of any technical plea or procedural wrangles.
8. Suseela, the appellant is a widow. She is not highly educated. she is an illiterate. She is not employed anywhere. She belongs to lower strata of
society. She battles for her daily existence/sustenance. She has lost one of her beloved son under most tragic circumstances. None of her other
siblings supports her. She is struggling lonely to get justice for her son''s death.
9. Let us not have strict approach in these matters. After all by giving an opportunity to adjudicate her claim no prejudice would be caused to the
respondent. If she succeeds in her claim, the cause of justice is advanced.
10. The learned counsel for the Railways pointed out that the Key man''s report is a key point in this case. According to the Key man''s report a
male aged about 20 years was ran over by the train, and hence, on his death, the appellant cannot claim compensation from the Railways.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Key man is their man. He is a Railway staff. His testimony and report has to be
verified on the altar of cross examination. The Key man''s report cannot be Gospel truth. It has to be considered only on evidence. So, the merit of
the matter could be appreciated by the Tribunal only on evidence. We shall not conclude on one side report.
12. In the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the appellant could be given an opportunity to put forth her claim for compensation
before the Railway Claims Tribunal. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The order of the Railway Claims Tribunal is set aside.
Delay is condoned. The Railway Claims Tribunal shall take the Original Application No.51 of 2009 on its file and dispose it of according to law at
an early date. No costs.
