The court applied the principle of condonation of delay due to Covid-19 and exclusion of the limitation period, and considered the appellant's plausible explanation for the delay in producing the ticket, leading to the allowance of the appeal and remand for compensation.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. No.29466/2022 (Delay)

1. By way of the present application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 CPC the appellant has sought condonation of delay of 965 days.

2. It is submitted that the appeal could not be filed as the appellant did not have requisite funds. Though the appeal was drafted however, the appellant, who is a resident of Bihar, came to Delhi in February, 2020 and the appeal was filed. He submits that in March, 2020 due to advent of Covid- 19, the Courts were closed and he could not file a physical copy of the appeal.

3. This Court takes note of the fact that, vide order dated 23.09.2021 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 titled as In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, the Supreme Court had directed that for computing the period of limitation in suit, appeal, application or proceedings, the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded.

4. In view of the aforementioned submissions and circumstances, the application is disposed of.

FAO 176/2022

5. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the appellant has assailed impugned judgment/award dated 01.11.2019 whereby the Claim Petition filed by him under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act was dismissed.

6. Brief facts necessary for consideration of the present appeal are that in his application, the appellant had claimed that on 27.03.2016 he undertook a train journey from Bareilly City Railway Station to Bahadurgarh in the `Bareilly Express Train'. When the train reached Bahadurgarh station, the appellant while deboarding fell and received injuries. He was initially admitted in the District Hospital Bahardurgarh from where he was referred to PGI Rohtak Hospital. He remained admitted from 27.03.2016 to 23.04.2016.

In the claim application filed under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, a claim of Rs. 8,00,000/- was made on account of the injuries suffered. The appellant's claim was resisted by the respondent by contending that there was no contemporaneous document in the railway records of the incident. In view of the stand taken by the respondent, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's claim.

7. A perusal of the material placed on record would show that the appellant claims to have suffered injuries on 27.03.2016. It was stated that the appellant was travelling alongwith one Manoj Singh and on account of heavy rush while getting down at Bahadurgarh Railway Station, he fell from the train resulting in injuries in his right lower limb and other multiple injuries all over his body. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the appellant has also placed on record his disability certificate whereby his disability was assessed at 56% permanent.

8. The appellant had further claimed that immediately after the incident, he was taken to District Hospital Bahadurgarh from where he was referred to PGI, Rohtak. The appellant also produced the medical record of PGI, Rohtak where he was admitted in the casualty department. The injuries suffered by the appellant also stand proved by his MLC that was prepared on 27.03.2016 at 03.26 pm mentioning therein the alleged history of train accident at 1.20 am. A perusal of the MLC would show that even a surgery was advised.

Even in communication addressed to the In-charge Police Force, it was stated that the appellant was admitted with the aforesaid alleged history of train accident at Bahadurgarh Railway Station. The appellant also produced a valid journey ticket bearing No.L-44229048 for travel from Bareilly City Railway Station to Bahadurgarh vide Bareilly Express Train.

9. The respondent has taken an objection that the said ticket was produced on 30.03.2016 i.e., three days after the accident.

10. Apparently, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for two reasons i.e., non-availability of any record with the respondent in relation to incident, and de