JUDGMENT
G.D. Patil, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. Heard by consent finally.
2. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 28.4.1998 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, dismissing the applicant’s application for condonation of delay involved in filing a claim petition before the Tribunal.
3. Undisputedly, on 10.2.96 the wife of the applicant Shashikalabai along with the applicant and their minor sons, applicant Nos. 2 to 4 were travelling by Nagpur-Tatanagar passenger train Ex. Tiroda to Raipur and during this journey the wife of the applicant had fallen down from the running train and ultimately died of the accident. The applicants, therefore, filed a complaint for compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal. The claim was filed on 29.10.1997, though the limitation for filing the same was up to 10.2.1997. There was thus a delay of eight months and ten days for filing the claim. As such the application for condonation of delay was filed along with the claim application. Since this application has been rejected, the present revision has been filed. It was urged by Mr. Harsulkar that the explanation given by the applicant in the application has not been properly considered by the Railway Claims Tribunal, which has resulted ultimately into not exercising the discretion properly. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that since there was no explanation properly given much less satisfactory one the rejection of the application for condonation of the delay cannot be held to be in any way improper and the revision is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
4. Having heard the learned counsel and having perused the application for condonation of the delay, it appears that the Tribunal cannot be said to be justified in rejecting the application for condonation of the delay and in not condoning the delay involved in filing the application. In the application for condonation of the delay, it is specifically averred that after seeing ghastly accident of his wife wherein her body was cut in two portions after falling down from the running passenger train the applicant suffered mental depression and later on he also fell ill and was under medical treatment for some period subsequent to 16.1.97 and it is in these circumstances there was delay in filing claim petition. The Railway Claims Tribunal basically relied on certificate of doctor which indicated that the applicant husband was suffering from typhoid from 16.1.1997 to 10.10.1997. The Tribunal has observed that the accident took place on 10/11.2.1996 and that, therefore, this certificate will not help the applicant at all. Apparently this was due to the fact that certificate related to the period subsequent to 16.1.97 whereas the accident occurred on 10.2.1996. The Tribunal, however, has ignored the averment made by the applicant husband about the period prior to 16.1.1997 in the application itself when he alleged that after seeing the ghastly accident of his wife due to sudden shock he suffered mental depression and it is on account of that also he could not file claim petition within the time prescribed. There is nothing before me to disbelieve this say of the applicant about he having suffered a mental shock and depression after seeing the crushed body of his wife and that it is on account of this he could not file claim petition for certain period of time. Besides this one cannot forget that the application is by the father as also by the minor sons. Three minor sons cannot be deprived of their right of making claim petition merely because there is some lapse on the part of father in that regard. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, to meet ends of justice the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay as this is the case where it cannot be said that sufficient cause for belated filing of the claim petition was not at all in existence. Contrary view taken by the Railway Claims Tribunal, therefore, cannot be justified. It is in this view of the matter that present revision application is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 28.4.98 is hereby quashed and set aside and the applicant’s application for condonation of the delay is hereby allowed and the delay involved in filing the claim petition is hereby condoned and the Tribunal is directed to decide the applicant’s claim petition on merits in accordance with law. There would be no order as to costs.