* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 22.01.2026 Pronounced on : 28.01.2026 Uploaded on : 28.01.2026 + FAO 82/2021 SH. RAJ KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood and Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates.

Versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Jitesh Vikram Srivastava, Advocate (SPC)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

CM APPL. 7518/2021

1. By way of the present application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the appellant seeks condonation of delay of 1035 days in filing the present appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after passing of the impugned judgment/order dated 02.08.2017, the appellant could not file the present appeal within the prescribed period. It is submitted that the appellant belongs to an economically weaker section and, due to paucity of funds, was unable to obtain timely legal advice. It is further submitted that the certified copy of the impugned judgment/order was received belatedly, and thereafter, upon arranging the requisite funds, the appellant approached the counsel and took steps for filing the present appeal. It is further stated that on account of the accident suffered, the appellant has lost both of his legs and had 98%

permanent physical disablement.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the application.

4. It is worthwhile to note that in Mohsina v. 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 poor economic status of the appellants/claimants. This Court also takes note of the decisions of this Court in Saddam v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4647, and Shalini Gihar v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3193, wherein delays of 685 days and 1122 days, respectively, were condoned, inter alia, considering the financial hardship of the appellants and the surrounding bona fide circumstances.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, and guided by the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions as well as the beneficial nature of legislation, this Court is satisfied that the appellant has been able to show sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, the application is allowed, and the delay of 1035 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.

6. The application is disposed of in the above terms.

FAO 82/2021

1. The present appeal has been instituted under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the impugned judgment dated 02.08.2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in O.A.(IIu) No. 36/2017.

2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal rejected the appellant‟s claim seeking compensation for the injuries statedly suffered by him, holding that the appellant was not a bona fide passenger and that the injuries caused to him were not on account of an “untoward incident” within the meaning as defined under section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the appellant was not a bona fide passenger merely on account of the non-recovery of the journey ticket of the appellant. It is further submitted that the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant was intoxicated at the relevant point of time and, pursuant to which, he had fallen from the train, was neither a specific plea raised before, nor was it established by the evidence on record.

4. Learned SPC appearing for the respondent, per contra, has disputed the bona fide passenger status of the appellant by contending that the appellant was intoxicated at the relevant point of time, as evidenced from the MLC as well as his own admission that he was carrying a bottle of liquor during the journey. It was submitted the injuries sustained