FAO No. 1054 of 2009 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 1054 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 3.12.2009
Smt. Soni Devi
.. Appellant
v.
Union of India
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Standing Counsel for Union of India.
...
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 29.9.2008,
passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short,
`the Tribunal’), whereby the application filed by the appellant for restoration of
Original Application No. OA-II/ 121/2006, which was dismissed in default on
25.9.2007, was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is a hard case in
which the husband of the appellant expired and for payment of compensation,
claim petition was filed before the Tribunal. As the accident had taken place
within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Chandigarh and the appellant in the
present case belongs to Bihar, counsel from Bihar only was engaged, who though
initially attended some hearings, but thereafter neither attended the hearings nor
informed the appellant, as a result of which the petition was dismissed in default
on 25.9.2007. Immediately when the appellant came to know about the dismissal
of the petition claiming compensation, an application for restoration thereof was
filed on 17.7.2008, which was dismissed as barred by time. Considering the
aforesaid facts, it was submitted that application for restoration filed by the
appellant deserves to be accepted and the claim petition be decided on merits.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
it is a case of gross negligence of the appellant as well as her counsel. Even if the
counsel had not appeared on 25.9.2007, when the case was dismissed in default,
FAO No. 1054 of 2009 [2]
the appellant also was equally negligent. The application was filed only on
17.7.2008, i.e., nearly 10 months thereafter. There is no reason forthcoming as to
why the appellant did not pursue her case diligently. As the cause shown for
restoration and that too which was prayed for belatedly was not sufficient, the
Tribunal has rightly dismissed the application.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the
present appeal deserves to be allowed. From the facts of the case, it is evident that
it is a very hard case. The husband of the appellant expired. The claim petition was
filed in the Tribunal at Chandigarh. The appellant being an illiterate lady and
resident of Bihar engaged a counsel from Bihar only to pursue her case before the
Tribunal. If he had not appeared before the Tribunal and on account of which the
claim petition was dismissed in default, the appellant should not be made to suffer
only because there was some delay in filing the application for restoration thereof,
as the same was filed when she came to know about the dismissal of the claim
petition. She was not to gain anything by sleeping over the matter, once it came to
her notice that the claim petition had been dismissed by the Tribunal.
Considering the aforesaid facts, the impugned order passed by the
Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh
consideration on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on
16.1.2010 for further proceedings. As the claim petition was filed way back in the
year 2006, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the same expeditiously, preferably
within a period of six months from the next date of hearing.
The appeal stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
3.12.2009
mk