* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 19.02.2026 Pronounced on : 13.03.2026 Uploaded on : 13.03.2026 + FAO 23/2024 SMT. ASHA DEVI & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood, Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, GP with Ms.

Manpreet Kaur and Ms. Archana Kumari, Advocates for UOI CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

CM APPL. 3112/2024(condonation of delay)

1. By way of the present application, the applicants/appellants seek condonation of delay of 595 days in filing the present appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that after the passing of the judgment/order dated 25.02.2022 (hereinafter referred to as “impugned judgment”), the appellants were 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 weak section and due to paucity of funds, could not obtain timely legal advice. In this regard, it is pointed out that the deceased was the sole earning member of the appellants’ family and thus, a liberal approach may be considered by this Court by condoning the delay in question.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay of 595 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

6. The application is disposed of in above terms.

FAO 23/2024

1. The present appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, assailing the judgment dated 25.02.2022 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi, in Case No. OA II(U)/DLI/LKO/158/2021 in “Smt. Asha Devi v. Union of India”.

2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application of the appellants on the grounds that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and that the alleged incident did not amount to an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2)

of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

3. Briefly stated, the case of the appellants, as set out in the claim application, is that on 28.04.2011, one Amar Singh (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was travelling from Balrai Railway Station to Etawah

1 (2017) SCC OnLine Del 10003.

Railway Station in 2 SPM (Shikohabad-Phaphund) EMU train on the strength of a valid journey ticket. It is alleged that when the train reached near Jaswant Nagar Railway Station, the deceased, due to heavy rush and a sudden jerk inside the compartment, accidentally fell from the running train and died on the spot. Thereafter, the deceased was removed to the Government District Hospital, Etawah, where the post-mortem examination was conducted.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned judgment by contending that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train and that the incident in question was an “untoward incident” as defined under the Act. It is submitted that although the journey ticket was not recovered from the body of the deceased, the testimonies of AW-1 Jitender Kumar, the son of the deceased, and AW-2 Atar Singh, a co-passenger travelling with the deceased, establish that the deceased had purchased a valid ticket and was travelling on the relevant train. It is further submitted that the recovery of the body near KM No. 1173/12-1173/10 near Jaswant Nagar Railway Station, coupled with the panchnama which records the death to h