IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 926 FIRST APPEAL NO. 383 OF 2016 Laxmibai Rambhau More And Anr VERSUS Union Of India, Thr General Manager, Central Railway, C.S.T., Mumbai ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Vishnu B. Madan Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Navandar Manish N. ... CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. Dated : September 02, 2026 ORAL ORDER : 1. The present appellants are the widow and son, respectively, of deceased Rambhau More, who is stated to have expired in a railway accident on 05.06.2010 while travelling from Manmad to Chalisgaon. 2. The appellants filed an application seeking compensation on account of the sad demise of late Rambhau on 13.06.2014. There was a delay of around 3 years and 7 days in filing the application. Section 17 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 prescribes a limitation period of one year for filing a claim arising out of railway accidents. 3. The delay was sought to be explained by stating that the appellants/original applicants are poor, illiterate persons who were unaware that the dependents and family members of the deceased victim are entitled to claim compensation in cases of accidental death in a railway accident. Page 1 of 4 2026:BHC-AUG:40134 926 FA 383-2016 4. The learned Railway Claims Tribunal, however, rejected the application for condonation of delay, holding that ignorance of law cannot be a good ground for condonation, that the delay was inordinate and not properly explained, and that financial hardship cannot be a valid ground for seeking condonation of a delay of around three years. 5. The learned Advocate for the appellants contends that there are only two Railway Claims Tribunals in Maharashtra—one at Mumbai and the other at Nagpur. He submits that people are generally not aware of the remedy of filing compensation cases in the event of death or injury resulting from a railway accident. The learned Advocate further contends that appellant No.1 is an aged, illiterate widow of the deceased, and appellant No.2, his son, is a poor person who earns a livelihood through manual labour. Having regard to the beneficial nature of the provision, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay. 6. Per contra, the learned Advocate for the respondent–Railway Administration supports the impugned order, submitting that delay, as is well settled, cannot be condoned merely for the asking. He contends that if such reasons are accepted for condoning delay, the statutory provisions incorporating limitation would be rendered Page 2 of 4 926 FA 383-2016 meaningless, reiterating that the delay is inordinate and not satisfactorily explained. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal ought to have allowed the application for condonation of delay. The appellants are poor, illiterate individuals. The husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant No.2 died in a railway accident. As rightly pointed out, there are only two Railway Claims Tribunals in Maharashtra. The claim, even if allowed, is for a statutorily fixed amount of compensation. There is nothing to infer that the delay was wilful, deliberate, or that the appellants benefited in any manner by delaying the filing of the application. The beneficial nature of the legislation must also be borne in mind while dealing with applications for condonation of delay. 8. Having regard to the reasons offered for seeking condonation of delay, as well as the beneficial object of the legislation, the delay caused in filing the claim application is hereby condoned. ORDER (i) Delay caused in filing Claim Application No. MA/NGP/2014/0043 is condoned. Page 3 of 4 926 FA 383-2016 (ii) The matter is remitted back to the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, for adjudication of the application on merits. (iii) The parties shall appear before the Railway Claims Tribunal on 01.10.2026. The parties to note that separate notices for appearance will not be issued. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ) vj gawade/-. Page 4 of 4