Laxmin Devi v. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, North East Railway Gorakhpur U.P.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Appeal No.4 of 2014 =========================================================== Laxmin Devi, W/o Late Shivnath Yadav Resident Of Village Chaiyapali, Pateri, P.O. Chaiyapali, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Siwan (Bihar). .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

The Union of India Through The General Manager, North East Railway, Gorakhpur (U.P.).

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Mohan Murari. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mahesh Prasad. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 07-04-2015 Heard Mr. Krishna Mohan Murari, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mahesh Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-railway on I.A. No. 2778 of 2014 as well as M.A. No. 04 of 2014.

I.A. No. 2778 of 2014 has been filed for condonation of delay of two years two months in filing the present appeal on the ground that the appellant is little literate and rustic so they could not aware of the decision of higher Court for granting interest in compensation matter from the date of filing of the application. The present appeal under Section 23(1) of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 has been filed against the order dated 28.07.2011 passed in Case No. OA 00069 of 2001 by the

Patna High Court MA No.4 of 2014 dt.07-04-2015 2/2 Member (Judicial) Railway Claim Tribunal, Patna Bench hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'. By the said order, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim case and directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- within two months otherwise interest @ 9% will be payable from the date of filing of the claim application till realization. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that compensation amount has already been received by the claimant in terms of the order of the learned Tribunal.

As such, the explanation, as given in the interlocutory application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, is not plausible and bona fide.

Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application no. 2778 of 2014 is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the above interlocutory application, the present miscellaneous application is also dismissed. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.) Shail/- U