- (1.)APPEAL is admitted.
(2.)CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, and with consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the appeal is heard on merits today and is being disposed of by this judgment.
The instant appeal is filed challenging the order dated 15.3.2010 passed by learned Member of Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ('RCT, Ahmedabad Bench', for short), whereby the application filed by the appellants herein for restoration of main claim petition came to be dismissed on the ground that the delay could not be condoned for restoration.

I have perused the impugned order rendered by the learned RCT, Ahmedabad Bench and the relevant provisions, namely, Section 17(2) and Section 18 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act as well as Rule 18(2) and Rule 38 of Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1989. In the case, there was delay of about one year and 7 months in moving restoration application to restore the main claim petition, which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. The Tribunal observed that Section 17(2) of the RCT Act does not apply for restoration of application which is subject of Rule 18(2) of the RCT (Procedure) Rules. The Tribunal alternatively observed that even there was no sufficient ground for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay was not condoned and the restoration application came to be dismissed.

(3.)MR.Mehta, ld.advocate for the appellants, relied upon a case of Pushpakaran Vs.Union of India reported in 2008 ACJ 2469, wherein the main petition was dismissed for default and the restoration application which came to be filed was delayed by 30 days. The concerned Tribunal held that since the same was not a civil Court, it had no power to condone the delay beyond the time fixed in the Rules. The matter came up before Kerala High Court and the issue which was required to be decided was whether the Railway Claims Tribunal can condone the delay on sufficient reasons on application u/s.5 of the Limitation Act or not, and the said issue was replied in the affirmative and the delay was condoned and the main claim petition was remanded to the Tribunal for adjudication on merits. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ratio laid down in the case relied upon shall squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
In the memo of appeal as well as during the course of submissions, Mr.Mehta, ld.advocate for the appellant submitted that since the appellants were residing at the relevant time in Dehradun, and due to non-presence of the appellants and the advocate on 9.5.2006 before the Tribunal, the matter came to be dismissed. It is further averred in the memo of appeal as well as submitted by ld.counsel Mr.Mehta, the appellants are of old age and are poor, and only on 9.5.2006, he could not reach to Ahmedabad from Dehradun and the main matter came to be dismissed. However, Mr.Ravi Karnavat, ld.counsel for the respondent submitted that no sufficient ground is available for condonation of long delay of one year and 7 months. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and especially the nature of main litigation, so also considering the averments made in the memo of appeal as well as considering the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants, this Court is of the opinion that sufficient ground is available for condonation of delay and the delay is sufficiently explained. However, Mr.Ravi Karnavat, ld.advocate for the respondent ? Railway submitted that the Claims Tribunal at the relevant time in main claim petition directed the appellant herein to pay costs of Rs.1000/- to the railway administration, but even the said order of the Tribunal was not complied with. Mr.Mehta, ld.advocate for the appellants states that the appellants have no objection to deposit the amount of costs.