* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 09.02.2026 Pronounced on : 13.02.2026 Uploaded on : 13.02.2026 + FAO 55/2021 PRIYANKA AND ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima and Ms.Megha Sood Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Chiranjiv Kumar and Mr. Mukesh Sachdeva, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

CM APPL. 4554/2021 (For condonation of delay of 255 days in filing the appeal)

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 appellants seek condonation of delay of 255 days in filing the present appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that after passing of the judgment/order dated 12.12.2019 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned judgment”), the appellants could not file the present appeal within the prescribed period. It is submitted that the delay is bona fide and was caused on account of paucity of funds.

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

4. It is noted that a substantial portion of the delay, being approximately 230 days falling between 15.03.2020 and the filing of the appeal, stands excluded in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020. It is also noteworthy 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 condition of the appellants/claimants.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, and guided by the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.

6. Accordingly, the application is allowed and disposed of.

FAO 55/2021

1. The present appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, assailing the judgment/order dated 12.12.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) , Delhi, in Case No. OA (IIu) No. 222/2018 in “Smt. Priyanka & Ors. v.

Union of India”.

2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application of the appellants on the grounds that neither was the deceased a bona fide passenger nor was the alleged incident an untoward incident as defined under the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case, as set out in the claim application, are that on 17.12.2017, one Sumit (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was travelling from Boudaki to Delhi Shahdara, holding a valid journey ticket. When the train was approaching Shahdara Railway Station, the deceased allegedly fell from the train and sustained grievous injuries. Information regarding the incident was later conveyed by an unknown person to the brother of the deceased, who reached the spot of the alleged accident. The deceased was thereafter taken to GTB Hospital, where he succumbed to the grievous injuries and was declared dead. The journey ticket date 17.12.2017 along with other items as noted in the Fard Articles were handed over to the ASI by the elder brother of the deceased.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned judgment by contending that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, traveling in the train on the strength of a valid ticket purchased by him for Rs.10/-, which had been handed over by the brother of the deceased. In this regard, it is submitted that the Tribunal erred in concluding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger solely on the assumption that the train would have reached Boudaki at about 3:00 AM in the winter season and it was unlikely that someone would board the train at such an odd hour. The said finding is based on conjecture rather than substantive evidence. It is submitted that the Tribunal wrongly rejected the case of accidental fall and instead accept