LAXMIBAI RAMBHAU MORE AND ANRversusUNION OF INDIA, THR GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL RAILWAY, C.S.T., MUMBAI

2026:BHC-AUG:40134


                     IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           926 FIRST APPEAL NO. 383 OF 2016

                              Laxmibai Rambhau More And Anr
                                          VERSUS
            Union Of India, Thr General Manager, Central Railway, C.S.T., Mumbai
                                             ...
                        Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Vishnu B. Madan
                     Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Navandar Manish N.
                                             ...

                                CORAM       : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
                                Dated       : September 02, 2026

           ORAL ORDER :

           1.    The present appellants are the widow and son, respectively, of

           deceased Rambhau More, who is stated to have expired in a railway

           accident on 05.06.2010 while travelling from Manmad to Chalisgaon.



           2.    The appellants filed an application seeking compensation on

           account of the sad demise of late Rambhau on 13.06.2014. There was

           a delay of around 3 years and 7 days in filing the application. Section

           17 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 prescribes a limitation

           period of one year for filing a claim arising out of railway accidents.



           3.    The delay was sought to be explained by stating that the

           appellants/original applicants are poor, illiterate persons who were

           unaware that the dependents and family members of the deceased

           victim are entitled to claim compensation in cases of accidental death

           in a railway accident.

                                             Page 1 of 4
                                                            926 FA 383-2016




4.   The learned Railway Claims Tribunal, however, rejected the

application for condonation of delay, holding that ignorance of law

cannot be a good ground for condonation, that the delay was

inordinate and not properly explained, and that financial hardship

cannot be a valid ground for seeking condonation of a delay of

around three years.



5.   The learned Advocate for the appellants contends that there

are only two Railway Claims Tribunals in Maharashtra—one at

Mumbai and the other at Nagpur. He submits that people are

generally not aware of the remedy of filing compensation cases in

the event of death or injury resulting from a railway accident. The

learned Advocate further contends that appellant No.1 is an aged,

illiterate widow of the deceased, and appellant No.2, his son, is a

poor person who earns a livelihood through manual labour. Having

regard to the beneficial nature of the provision, it is submitted that

the learned Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay.



6.   Per contra, the learned Advocate for the respondent–Railway

Administration supports the impugned order, submitting that delay,

as is well settled, cannot be condoned merely for the asking. He

contends that if such reasons are accepted for condoning delay, the

statutory provisions incorporating limitation would be rendered

                               Page 2 of 4
                                                                      926 FA 383-2016



meaningless, reiterating that the delay is inordinate and not

satisfactorily explained.



7.    Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, in the

considered opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal ought to have

allowed the application for condonation of delay. The appellants are

poor, illiterate individuals. The husband of appellant No.1 and father

of appellant No.2 died in a railway accident. As rightly pointed out,

there are only two Railway Claims Tribunals in Maharashtra. The

claim, even if allowed, is for a statutorily fixed amount of

compensation. There is nothing to infer that the delay was wilful,

deliberate, or that the appellants benefited in any manner by

delaying the filing of the application. The beneficial nature of the

legislation must also be borne in mind while dealing with applications

for condonation of delay.



8.    Having regard to the reasons offered for seeking condonation

of delay, as well as the beneficial object of the legislation, the delay

caused in filing the claim application is hereby condoned.



                                 ORDER


            (i)   Delay     caused      in     filing   Claim   Application    No.
            MA/NGP/2014/0043 is condoned.



                                     Page 3 of 4
                                                              926 FA 383-2016




               (ii) The matter is remitted back to the learned Railway
               Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, for adjudication
               of the application on merits.



               (iii) The parties shall appear before the Railway Claims
               Tribunal on 01.10.2026. The parties to note that separate
               notices for appearance will not be issued.




                                                 ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )




vj gawade/-.




                                   Page 4 of 4