Back
2026 Supreme(Del) 292
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.
Priyanka Sharma and Others – Appellants
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
F.A.O. No. 59 of 2020
Decided On : 29-01-2026
For the Appellants : Rajan Sood, Ashima Sood, Megha Sood
For the Respondents: Arunima Dwivedi, Swati Jhunjhunwala, Himanshi Singh, Monalisha Pradhan
Strict liability under Railways Act applies; delays in ticket production do not negate compensation claims for deaths from untoward incidents.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Section 23 - Condonation of delay in filing appeal on grounds of economic hardship is permissible, with reference to precedent allowing similar orders due to poor status (Paras 1-6).
(B) Compensation Claims - Under Railways Act, provisions are beneficial and must be interpreted liberally, establishing strict liability for compensation without needing proof of negligence (Paras 13-14).
Facts of the case:
The deceased, Tara Chand Sharma, died from injuries sustained when he fell from a train while traveling. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal for compensation citing delay in ticket production and a lack of evidence supporting bona fide travel. The appellants are family members who filed for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000.
Findings of Court:
The findings of the Tribunal were legally untenable and based on conjecture; the deceased was held to have experienced an 'untoward incident' leading to compensation entitlement.
Issues: The court addressed whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, the appropriateness of ticket production timing, and application of strict liability under the Railways Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the death resulted from an 'untoward incident' under the Railways Act, rejecting the Tribunal's reasoning that attributed negligence to the deceased.
Result: Appeal allowed; compensation payable is either Rs. 4,00,000 or revised amount of Rs. 8,00,000, with specified interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condonation of delay in filing appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 5) |
| 2. grounds for appealing against tribunal's decision. (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. evidence provided by appellant and co-passenger. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. strict liability under railways act. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. outcome and compensation determination. (Para 14 , 15 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. final order of the appeal. (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.
CM APPL. 4630/2020 (delay of 690 days in filing the present appeal)
1. The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 151 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( CPC ) on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 690 days in filing the accompanying appeal.
2. Mr. Rajan Sood, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that after passing of the impugned judgment, the appellant could not file the accompanying appeal in time on account of paucity of funds and the resultant inability to obtain timely legal advice.
3. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention the decision rendered by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Mohsina v. Union of India , (2017) SCC OnLine Del 10003; wherein a delay of 804 days in filing of the appeal was condoned taking into account poor economic status of the appellants/claimants. Relevant excerpt from the decision is reproduced hereunder:-
“4. The appellants are seeking condonation of delay of 804 days in filing the appeal on the ground that appellant no. 1 is an illiterate and poor lady; she lost her husband in the train accident; her father-in-law was pursuing the case before the Claims Tribunal; her father-in-law expired, whereupon her mother-in-law threw her out from the matrimonial home and she is residing with her father who is also handicapped; she was working as a maid servant to make both ends meet; her cousin came from abroad on 02nd May, 2013 and felt pity over her and made enquiries from the Claims Tribunal and thereafter, helped her in filing the appeal.
5. Considering the extreme poverty and illiteracy of the appellants, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to the condition that the appellants would not be entitled to interest for the delayed period of 804 days.”
4. In the present case, the appellants claim to be economically disadvantaged and were consequently incapacitated from filing the present appeal. It was further stated that due to paucity of funds, they were unable to seek legal advice in time or instruct a counsel to file the appeal. It is further stated that Appellants 2 & 3 are resident of District Dholpur, Rajasthan.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, as well as the import of the decision rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mohsina (supra), the application is allowed and the delay in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.
6. The application is disposed of accordingly.
FAO 59/2020
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, on behalf of the appellants/claimants seeking setting aside of the judgment dated 07.12.2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA(IIu) 09/2017.
2. The appellants, who were the claimants before the Tribunal, are the family members of Tara Chand Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”). Appellant no. 1, Priyanka Sharma is the wife of the deceased, Appellant no. 2, Kamla Devi is the mother of the deceased, and Appellant no. 3, Ram Nath is the father of the deceased.
3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal rejected the appellants' claim for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with the interest at the rate of 18% p.a., from the date of the accident, in respect of the death of the deceased. The case of the appellants’ was that on 27.02.2016, at around 10:00 PM, the deceased was travelling in the Jhansi-Hazrat Nizamuddin Taj Express (Train No. 122
