* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 03.02.2026 Pronounced on : 05.02.2026 Uploaded on : 05.02.2026 + FAO 189/2024 SMT CHANDA DEVI & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood and Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Varun Vats, SPC, UOI and Mr.Vivek Nagar G.D., Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

CM APPL. 34302/2024 (Application seeking condonation of delay of 185 days in filing the present appeal by the appellants)

1. By way of the present application, the applicants/appellants seek condonation of delay of 185 days in filing the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that after the passing of the impugned judgment/order dated 05.09.2023, the appellants unable to file the appeal within the prescribed period. It is submitted that the delay is bona fide and neither intentional nor deliberate. It is further submitted that the appellants belong to an economically weaker background, and due to paucity of funds, could not obtain timely legal advice.

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

4. It is worthwhile to note that in Mohsina v. Union of India¹, a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court condoned a delay of 804 days in filing the appeal, taking into account the weak economic status of the appellants/claimants.

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

6. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay of 185 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

7. The application is disposed of in above terms.

FAO 189/2024

1. The present appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, assailing the judgment dated 05.09.2023 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi, in Case No. OA(IIu) No. 87/2013 titled as, “Smt. Chanda Devi & Ors. v. Union of India”.

1

2017 SCC OnLine Del 10003

2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by the appellants, holding that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger in the train in question nor the alleged incident was proven to be an “untoward incident” as defined under the Railways Act, 1989.

3. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that in the claim petition, it was claimed that on the intervening night of 25/26.10.2018, Sachitanand Singh @ Sachidanand (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) was traveling from Ara, Bihar, to New Delhi on the strength of a valid journey ticket. It was claimed that when the train was about to reach the New Delhi Railway Station, the deceased, who was standing near the gate of the train compartment, accidentally fell down from the moving train, and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, he was removed to LNJP Hospital where he was declared brought dead.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned order by contending that the death of the deceased had occurred on account of his accidental fall from the train. It was submitted that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, as he was undertaking the train journey based on a valid ticket and that a mere non-recovery of the ticket cannot be held against the appellants. Further, it is submitted that the alleged accident amounted to an “untoward incident”, inasmuch as the head injuries caused to the deceased, duly recorded in his post-mortem and inquest reports, were of a nature which, according to the appellants, could be caused by an accidental fall from train. It is also pointed out that the respondent has not claimed that the incident falls in any exception under Section 124A of the Railways Act,1989. Reliance has also been placed on Doli Rani Saha v. Unio