* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 11.03.2026 Pronounced on : 18.03.2026 Uploaded on : 18.03.2026 + FAO 326/2019 SAJNA DEVI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Advocate.

versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC for UOI with Mr.Aryan Dhaka, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

CM APPL. 36379/2019 (Seeking condonation of delay of 459 days in filingthe accompanying appeal)

1. By way of the present application, the applicant/ appellant seeks condonation of delay of 459 days in filing the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after the passing of the judgment dated 12.01.2018, the appellant was unable to file the appeal within the prescribed time. It is further submitted that the appellant belongs to an economically weaker section and, due to paucity of funds, was unable to get in contact with a counsel and obtain timely legal advice.

3. It is noteworthy that in Mohsina vs. Union of India, 1(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 weak economic condition of the appellant/ claimant.

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

5. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay of 459 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

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

FAO 326/2019

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 12.01.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA (IIu) No. 181/2017 titled as “Smt. Sajna Devi vs. Union of India”.

2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by the appellant herein on the ground that the deceased was neither 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. The brief facts of the case, as statedin the claim application, are that on16.07.2016, one Sushil Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was travelling from Neem-Ka-Thana to Delhi by Chetak Express (Train No. 12982) on the strength of a valid journey ticket. While the train was approaching Patel Nagar Railway Station, the deceased fell from the running train, sustaining grievous injuries including crushing of both legs. The deceased was first taken to Acharya Shree Bhikshu Government Hospital and thereafter, was shifted to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Delhi, where he succumbed to his injuries in the early hours of 18.07.2016.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant 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 testimony of AW-2, Ashok Kumar, the cousin brother of the deceased establishes that the deceased undertook the journey on a valid ticket, which was purchased by AW-2 for him and was lost in the course of the untoward incident. It is further submitted that no DRM report was produced by the respondent even till the stage of final arguments. Learned counsel further emphasized that the Tribunal has also failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record, including DD entries and medical records, which establish that the deceased suffered grievous injuries due to an accidental fall from the train.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment by submitting that the