- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16217 MFA No. 4008 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4008 OF 2019 (RCT) BETWEEN: 1. RENUKA W/O LATE BASAVARAJ 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE 2. NIRMALA D/O LATE BASAVARAJ W/O DEVINDRA GANGBO AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE NEAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE GOLA-(K) CHITTAPUR TALUK GULBARGA DISTRICT – 585 228. 3. POOJA D/O LATE BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS OCCUPATION: HOUSE MAKER 4. SHIVARAYA @ SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS MINOR 5. MALAMMA @ MALLAMMA D/O LATE BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS MINOR 6. NAGAMMA W/O LATE MAREPPA D/O LATE BASAVARAJ Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16217 MFA No. 4008 of 2019 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCCUPATION: NOT WORKING APPELLANTS NOS.4 AND 5 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1 APPELLANT NOS.1 AND 3 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT HALKATTA, CHITTAPUR TALUK GULBARGA DISTRICT - 585 225 KARNATAKA STATE. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. A. MANJULA, ADVOCATE) AND: UNION OF INDIA SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER SECUNDERABAD. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT –NOTICE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23(1) OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.03.2019 PASSED IN MA NO.C 069/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE CLAIMANT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS DISMISSED AS TIME BARRED. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16217 MFA No. 4008 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Though the appeal is listed for admission, but with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The applicants, who are the mother, wife and children of the deceased have filed claim application for compensation on account of the death of Sri. Basavaraj S/o. Late Mareppa (the deceased) in a railway accident. However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application only on the reason that there is delay of 472 days in filing the claim application. Therefore, the claim application filed by the applicants was dismissed as it was barred by limitation. 3. It is the case of the applicants that on 08.07.2016, the deceased while travelling in the train after purchasing the journey ticket from Gulbarga to Nalwar Railway Station died in the railway accident, but the claim application filed by the applicants was rejected only on the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16217 MFA No. 4008 of 2019 reason that there is delay of 472 days in preferring the claim application. 4. The delay aspect can be considered in a positive and magnanimous way considering judicial notice of the status and living conditions of the applicants, who are wife, children and mother. The deceased died in the railway accident therefore, the applicants have lost the breadwinner in the family. When this being the fact that a breadwinner died in the railway accident, the life of the applicants had become miserable and have faced mental agony, hardship, inconvenience and financial constraints even it may lead to a struggle for earning livelihood. Under these circumstances, it is difficult for the applicants to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal and to file the claim application when their very existence is a struggle due to the untoward incident causing the death of the deceased. Therefore, even though there is delay in preferring the claim application, it ought to have been - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16217 MFA No. 4008 of 2019 considered in magnanimous way rather than to approaching technicality of the law. 5. When the wife and mother are residing in a village being rustic and semi-literate persons and do not have knowledge of worldly affairs, it is quite natural for some delay to occur under these circumstances. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered the claim application in a positive and in a magnanimous way. Hence, the approach of the Tribunal in dismissing the claim application only on the ground of delay is not correct and thus liable to be set aside. Therefore, the delay in preferring the claim application is hereby condoned. 6. Since evidence by both sides are not discussed hence, the matter requires remand for consideration of the claim application on merits in accordance with law after receiving the evidence from both the parties. Therefore, the case is remanded to the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall consider the application and dispose of it in accordance - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16217 MFA No. 4008 of 2019 with law on merits within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 21.03.2018 passed in MA No.C 069 of 2018 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, is hereby set aside. iii. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law. iv. No order as to costs. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28