* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 05.02.2026 Pronounced on : 13.03.2026 Uploaded on : 13.03.2026 + FAO 34/2026 SH. VISHWRAJ .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood and Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Dhananjai Rana, CGSC for UOI with Mr. Arvind, GP.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

CM APPL. 7965/2026 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

CM APPL. 7964/2026 (Condonation of delay of 200 days)

1. By way of the present application, the appellant seeks condonation of delay of 200 days in filing the accompanying appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the delay occurred on account of circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant belongs to an economically weak background. Owing to his medical condition and financial constraints, the appellant was unable to obtain timely legal advice and arrange for the filing of the present appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. It is further submitted that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate.

3. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Mohsina v. Union of India, (2017) SCC OnLine Del 10003., wherein a Co-ordinate Bench condoned a delay of 804 days in filing the appeal while taking into account the socio-economic condition of the claimants and the beneficial object of the legislation.

4. Having considered the submissions made and the view of the decision in Mohsina (supra) and keeping in view the beneficial nature of the legislation, this Court is satisfied that the appellant has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present appeal.

5. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay of 200 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

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

FAO 34/2026

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the impugned judgment dated 29.04.2025 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA II(u) No. 321/2024, whereby the claim application filed by the appellant seeking injury compensation was dismissed.

2. The case of the appellant before the Tribunal was that on 11.03.2024, he boarded Train No. 14218 (Unchahar Express) after purchasing a journey ticket from Panipat to Delhi and accidentally fell from the moving train due to heavy rush, resulting in grievous injuries including amputation of both legs.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment contending that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim by relying upon the DRM Report and the testimony of RW-1, while disregarding the testimony of the appellant. It was submitted that mere non-recovery of the journey ticket cannot be treated as conclusive proof of absence of bona fide travel, particularly in cases involving grievous injuries. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 to contend that the initial burden upon the claimant can be discharged by filing an affidavit and that thereafter the onus shifts upon the Railways to rebut the same.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the Tribunal rightly concluded that the appellant failed to establish his status as a bona fide passenger. It was contended that no journey ticket was recovered during jamatalashi and that the appellant‟s version was unsupported by any co-passenger or independent evidence. It was further submitted that the entries made by the Loco Pilot immediately after the incident, as reflected in the Loco Pilot Note Book and Station records clearly indicate that the incident was a case of “man run over”, which constituted reliable contemporaneou