AMIT TALUKDAR, PRABHAT KUMAR DEY, J. - (1.) TO husband out life 'staper at the stage of loss of her husband persuaded her to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal (R.C.T.) for compensation as known under Section 124 -A of the Railways Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).
(2.) WHILE death claimed her soulmate in fortuitous circumstances as known to the provisions of the aforesaid section of the said Act, can time steal her claim for sustenance? It would be of primordial consideration of the parameters of this Appeal filed at the instance of the South Eastern Railway Administration through its General Manager. Mrs. Soma Roy Chowdhury the Railway Counsel in support of the Appeal, has placed before us the entire order passed by the learned Member (Technical) of the said RCT passed on 17th November 2009, in connection with No. I.A. 05 of 2008 (O.A. (IIu) 62/2008, whereby over ruling the objection raised by the Railway administration claim petition was admitted on merit. This has seen the Railway administration in appeal mainly on the ground that in the absence of sufficient cause being shown for the enormous delay for six and a half years it was not incumbent upon the RCT to have acted on the said plea. For this purpose Mrs. Roy Chowdhury referred to the decisions in Union of India V/s. Orissa State Electricity Board and Others reported in A.I.R. 2001 Ori. 109 : 2001 (1) T.A.C. 298 and Dewan Zainulabedeen V/s. Wajid Ali Chaudhury reported in AIR 2003 Gau. 15. She has also placed before us a decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in M. K. Prasad V/s. P. Arumugam reported in A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 2497 and submitted that unless sufficient cause has been shown there is no scope for condonation of delay.
(3.) INVITING our attention to sub -section (2) of Section 17 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act (RCT Act for short), she has submitted that in view of sub -Section (2) there is a specific bar on filing of appeals beyond statutory period and the RCT in fact has caused a failure of justice of being oblivious of the said provisions and allowed the Respondent (Claimant before the RCT) to have her claim put on board. She has further submitted that the reason for delay which has been shown in the petition (Annexure 'P2 ') is not sufficient nor can it be said that there was justified reasons for condoning it. Accordingly, she has prayed for dismissing the claim petition pending before the RCT in the circumstances that have been put on the file.;