SHIV KUMAR SHARMA,J. - (1.) AS common question of law is involved in these revision petitions, they are disposed by this single judgment.
(2.) ALL these revision petitions, are directed against the orders dated 24.4.1996, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, whereby the applications filed by the claimant respondents under Section 17 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) delay in filing the claims has been condoned. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant respondent filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur with an application under Section 17 of the Act for condoning the delay. In the application for condonation of delay it was pleaded that at the time of delivery of the subject consignment, there was shortage of sugar, therefore, claim under Section 106 of the Indian Railway Act was preferred by the claimants with the CCS (Claims), Western Railway, Jaipur. But inspite of reminders payment was not made. When the compensation was not paid by the Railway to the claimants then as per the instructions of the G.M. vide its letter dated 17.12.1993, all papers regarding the Railway receipts were handed over to Shri Yashwant Singh Arora, Advocate at Udaipur to take legal and necessary action against the Railways alongwith papers of all other claims in the 4th week of December, 1993 but no action was taken by the concerned and ultimately Advocate was asked to return the papers of the claims cases in the last week of January, 1994 but the files of the claims cases were not readily available with the Advocate and the same were finally returned in the month of March, 1996. It was further pleaded that after receipt of papers, claimants Regional Manager made a contact with another Advocate and all the relevant papers were handed over to new Advocate to file applications before the Tribunal and thus the applications for recovery of compensation were filed by the claimants without any further delay and it was pleaded that delay in filing the applications was due to negligence on the part of the Advocate, which was a bonafide mistake. It was therefore prayed that delay in filing the applications for recovery of compensation be condoned.
(3.) THE applications were treated and registered as separate miscellaneous applications and notices were issued to the appellant to show as to why delay be not condoned. The Railway contested the applications by filing replies.;