In fatal transport incident claims, discovery of a verified ticket establishes a presumption of bona fide travel, shifting the evidentiary burden to the defense. Remedial laws mandate a liberal, justice-oriented interpretation, prohibiting the dismissal of claims based on speculative inferences or technicalities concerning incident location or delayed discovery.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

CM APPL. 52532/2022 (Seeking condonation of delay of 255 days in filing the appeal)

1. By way of the present application, the appellant seeks condonation of delay of 255 days in filing the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant belongs to an economically weaker section and due to paucity of funds, was unable to get in contact with a counsel and obtain timely legal advice.

3. It is noteworthy that in “ Mohsina vs. Union of India ” (2017) SCC OnLine Del 10003, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court condoned a delay of 804 days in filing the appeal, taking into account the weak economic condition of the appellant/ claimant.

4. The Railways Act, 1989 and the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 arise out of beneficial and social welfare legislation intended to provide compensation to victims of railway accidents and untoward incidents. In such matters, a liberal and justice-oriented approach is required while considering applications for condonation of delay so that genuine claims are not defeated on technical grounds.

5. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, and guided by the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision, as well as the beneficial nature of the concerned legislation, this Court finds that the appellant has been able to show sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present appeal.

6. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed and the delay of 255 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

7. The application is disposed of accordingly.

FAO 313/2022

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against the judgment dated 13.01.2022, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(u)/DLI/42/2021.

2. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that the appellant was neither a bona fide passenger nor did the incident come within the ambit of an “untoward incident” as defined under the Railways Act, 189 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the claim application are that on 15.02.2020, one Ved Prakash (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) had left for going to Faridabad and had purchased a valid journey ticket from Asaoti Railway Station to Faridabad New Town Railway Station. It was the case of the appellant that after boarding an EMU passenger train from Asaoti Railway Station, the deceased accidentally fell from the running train between Pyala and Ballabgarh Railway Station and sustained fatal injuries, as a result of which he died on the spot.

4. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the approach adopted by the Tribunal is wholly contrary to the settled legal principles governing claims under Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Act. It is contended that the recovery of railway ticket No. UAB-84097901 from the person of the deceased stands conclusively established not only from the jamatalashi proceedings but also from the DRM inquiry report and the RPF investigation. Learned counsel submits that the ticket was subsequently verified from Asaoti Railway Station and was found genuine. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal proceeded merely on assumptions arising from the delayed discovery of the body and the place where the body was found. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi , (2019) 3 SCC 572, Union of India