JUDGMENT

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 48870/2022

1. By way of the present application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, the appellants/claimants seek condonation of delay of 378 days in filing the present appeal.

2. Mr. Rajan Sood, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are sons of Sh. Hira Lal (the deceased), who unfortunately passed away in an ‘untoward incident’ on 13.07.2019. It is stated that though the impugned order was passed on 19.07.2021, however a certified copy of the same was received by the appellants only on 31.07.2021. He further submits that the appellants are poor persons and could not seek appropriate legal advice timely for want of funds. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the following decisions, firstly, a decision passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mohsina & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. reported as 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10003; a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Wasim Shamshulhak Shaikh v. Union of India reported as 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 3330; and lastly, a decision of the Bombay High Court in Smt. Kokilabai wd/o Shankarrao Choudhari v. Union of India, thr. its General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai, FAO 6007/2019.

3. Notably, in Mohsina (Supra), a delay of 804 days in filing of the appeal was condoned by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considering the poor economic status of the appellants/claimants.

4. In alike facts and circumstances, this Court in FAO 100/2021 titled as Sh. Saddam v. Union of India condoned delay of 685 days.

5. This Court also 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 has 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. The impugned order was passed on

19.07.2021. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and the delay of 378 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.

6. In view of the above mentioned submissions and circumstances, the application is disposed of.

FAO 284/2022

1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the Act’), the appellants seek setting aside of the order dated 19.07.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi whereby the claim application filed by them was dismissed.

2. Mr. Rajan Sood, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal erred in arriving at a conclusion that Sh. Hiralal (the deceased) was neither a bona fide passenger nor the incident could be termed as an ‘untoward incident’. It is submitted that the said conclusion was arrived at despite the fact that a valid journey ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased during Jamatalashi, which was conducted on the date of the incident i.e., 13.07.2019.

3. Per contra, Mr. Manish Agrawal Narain, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and submits that the place where the dead-body of Sh. Hiralal was found lying is at a distance of 300 mtrs. from his residence. It is submitted that the appellants have failed to establish as to why the deceased had purchased the journey ticket from Firozabad to Etawah when his residence was in Sarai Bhopat. It is contended that all the statements given by appellant No. 1 are contradictory with respect to purpose of travel.

4. Brief facts, as narrated in the claim application are that on 13.07.2019, the deceased purchased second class ordinary ticket bearing No. ACA-18220239 for travel from Firozabad to Etawah by a passenger train. It was claimed that the deceased fell from the moving train at Sarai Bhopat station and died on the spot.

5. It appears from the record that one Dinesh Singh, DY.SS/SB reported that a man h