Daily-Wage Labourer’s Widow Can Pursue Husband’s Railway Accident Claim After MP HC Condoned Nearly Two-Year Delay, Leaving Merits to Tribunal

The original claimant, Shri Naththa Bhai, sustained injuries after allegedly falling from a train on 17 December 2011. He filed a compensation claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT), but died on 18 August 2013 while it was pending.

His widow, Smt. Savita Ben, applied on 17 August 2015 to be substituted as his legal representative. The RCT dismissed the substitution application as filed beyond the 90-day period and consequently dismissed the claim. Savita Ben appealed, attributing the delay to poverty, frequent migration for work, and lack of communication; she also stated that her counsel learned of the claimant’s death only in August 2015.

Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 provides for an appeal to the High Court from an order of the RCT.

Rule 26(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 prescribes a 90-day period for substitution following a claimant’s death; the Court considered the application for substitution under Rule 26(2).

The Court also treated the Railway Claims Tribunal Act as beneficial legislation intended to provide speedy relief to railway-accident victims and their dependants, and held that procedural delay should not be applied in a hyper-technical manner where genuine practical difficulties are shown.

Although the substitution application was filed nearly two years after the claimant’s death and outside the 90-day period, the Court considered the appellant’s stated circumstances, including the family’s marginalised socio-economic background, daily-wage work, frequent migration, and counsel’s alleged lack of knowledge of the death until August 2015.

In light of the Act’s beneficial purpose, the Court concluded that the RCT had adopted an unduly technical approach by dismissing the claim without adjudicating its merits. It therefore found the delay deserving of condonation in the interests of justice.

The claim was remanded to the RCT, with directions to restore it to its original number and adjudicate it on the merits after giving both parties an adequate opportunity of hearing.