* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 26 March 2025 Judgment pronounced on: 02 April 2025 + FAO 240/2022 SUDHIR YADAV & ORS ..... Appellants Through: Ms. Shailja Kulshreshtha, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Avnish Singh, SPC with Mr. Vishal Kumar Yadav &

Mr. Anant Yadav, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

J U D G M E N T

1. This judgment shall decide the present appeal filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 23¹ of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, [2RCT Act] assailing the Impugned Order dated 03.01.2022 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, [Learned RCT] whereby the claim application OA/II(u)/DLI/263/2021, titled "Sudhir Yadav & Others vs. Union of India”, filed under Section 16 read with Section 13 (1A) of the RCT Act, was dismissed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1 23. Appeals.—(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5of1908) or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every order, not being an interlocutory order, of the Claims Tribunal, to the High Court having

jurisdiction over the place where the Bench is located.

(2) No appeal shall lie from an order passed by the Claims Tribunal with the consent of the parties.

(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of the order appealed against.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMFOADO 240/2022 Page 1 of 10

2. Briefly stated, it was the case of the appellants/claimants that on 16.16.2019, Amarnath Yadav [hereinafter referred as “the deceased”] along with his wife Vidhyawati Devi, son Sudhir Yadav, daughter-in- law Vimlesh Yadav and grandson Naitik boarded the Kasganj Farrukhabad Express, train no.15042, to travel from Kasganj Junction to Farrukhabad Junction on a reserved ticket bearing Nos. 67923422 and 67923423.

3. It was claimed that the train was overcrowded at the time and upon reaching Ganjdundwara railway station, the deceased proceeded to use the toilet in the coach but since the passage leading to the toilet was blocked by some cartons, preventing access, his father due to urgent physiological needs, alighted from the train at Ganjdundwara railway station to relieve himself. It was claimed that unaware of the short duration of the train’s stoppage, the deceased remained outside the coach when the train resumed movement, and in an attempt to re- board the train, he was unable to enter the coach due to the crowd. As a result, his hand slipped, and he fell off the train, a short distance from Ganjdundwara railway station, sustaining fatal injuries.

4. Upon discovering the incident, the appellants disembarked at the next station, Patiali, and attempted to report the accident to the railway staff. The appellants could locate only one railway staff member, who expressed his inability to assist. After waiting for some time, the appellants took a returning train back to Ganjdundwara railway station. It was claimed that upon arrival at Ganjdundwara railway station, the appellants reported the incident to the Police Post Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMFOADO 240/2022 Page 2 of 10 GRP, [4Government Railway Police.] and informed Head Constable Satya Prakash, RPF, [Railway Protection Force], who subsequently dispatched three GRP constables to accompany the appellant to the site of the accident. Upon reaching the spot, the body of the deceased was discovered.

5. With the assistance of his nephew, the appellant transported his father's body to the Government CHC, [Community Health Centre] Hospital, Ganjdundwara, at approximately 2:45 a.m., where he was declared dead. Based on the appellant’s narration, the CHC Hospital prepared a memo but erroneously recorded the cause of death as “a road accident”. This error was subsequently corrected by striking off "road" and inserting "rail" as the cause of the accident. The Medical Officer authenticated the co