* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 03.02.2026 Pronounced on : 04.02.2026 Uploaded on : 04.02.2026 + FAO 15/2019 PINKI KUMARI & ORS .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood &

Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Pratima N Lakra, CGSC with Mr.Shailendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

CM APPL. 1417/2019 (delay of 130 days in filing the present appeal)

1. The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 151 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 130 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

2. Mr. Rajan Sood, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that after passing of the impugned judgment, the appellant could not file the accompanying appeal in time on account of paucity of funds and the resultant inability to obtain timely legal advice.

3. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention the decision rendered by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Mohsina v. Union of India, (2017) SCC OnLine Del 10003; wherein a delay of 804 days in filing of the appeal was condoned taking into account poor economic status of the appellants/claimants.

4. In the present case, the appellants, due to paucity of funds, were unable to seek legal advice in time or instruct a counsel to file the appeal.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as well as the import of the decision in Mohsina(supra), the application is allowed and the delay in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.

6. The application is disposed of accordingly.

FAO 15/2019

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, on behalf of the appellants/claimants seeking setting aside of the judgment dated 04.06.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”)

in Claim Application No. OA(IIu) 105/2017.

2. The appellants, who were the claimants before the Tribunal, are the family members of Rajendra Chaudhary (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”). Appellant no. 1, Pinki Kumari is the daughter of the deceased, Appellant no. 2, Mina Devi is another daughter of the deceased, Appellant no. 3, Arjun Chaudhary is the son of the deceased and Appellant no. 4, Hemanti Devi is the wife of the deceased.

3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal rejected the appellants' claim for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with the interest at the rate of 18% p.a., from the date of the accident, in respect of the death of the deceased.

4. The case of the appellants‟ was that on 29.09.2016, the deceased was travelling in the Jharkhand Express from Barka Kana to Anand Vihar Railway Station, New Delhi, having a valid reserved ticket bearing PNR No. 6156876002. The train was running late and reached Anand Vihar Railway Station beyond its scheduled arrival time. While deboarding the train at Anand Vihar Railway Station, the deceased accidentally fell from the train and sustained grievous injuries all over his body. The deceased died at the spot, and his body remained at the site of the incident till morning.

5. The Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that the body of the deceased was found on an adjoining platform around 06:00 AM on 01.10.2016, i.e., several hours after the Jharkhand Express had arrived at Anand Vihar Terminal Railway Station which was at about 12:05AM. The Tribunal noted a substantial time gap between the arrival of the train and the recovery of the body, which remained unexplained. Relying upon the DRM Report and the testimony of the daughter of the deceased, the Tribunal held that the death had occurred while the deceased was allegedly attempting to board a local train later in the morning. Accordingly, it was held that there was no „untoward incident‟, despite the deceased being a bonafide passenger.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants as