* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 27.03.2026 + FAO 382/2018 BHANU PRATAP SINGH & ANR .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rohit Nagar, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Ridhima Gaur, SP for UOI + FAO 543/2018 BHANU PRATAP SINGH & ANR .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rohit Nagar, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Ridhima Gaur, SP for UOI CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGMENT (ORAL)

CM APPL. 32618/2018 in FAO 382/2018 (delay of47 days in filing the appeal)

1. This is an application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 47 days in filing of the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 47 days in filing of the appeal is condoned.

3. The application is disposed of accordingly.

CM APPL. 49919/2018 in FAO 543/2018 (delay of 01 day in filing the appeal)

1. This is an application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 01 day in filing of the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 01 day in filing of the appeal is condoned.

3. The application is disposed of accordingly.

FAO 382/2018&FAO 543/2018

1. The present set of appeals arise out of the judgment/ order dated 22.03.2018, passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”), in OA No. 167/2017, as well as the consequential order dated 27.06.2018. While FAO 382/2018 has been filed by the appellants assailing the dismissal of the claim petition, the connected appeal, i.e., FAO 543/2018 challenges the initiation of proceedings under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) arising out of the same proceedings.

As common submissions have been addressed, both the appeals are taken up together for consideration, and are being dealt with by way of a common judgment.

2. Briefly, the appellants had preferred a claim petition before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation on account of the death of one Atul Pratap (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”), who was stated to have died in an incident of accidental fall from a running train while travelling from Lucknow to New Delhi. It was the case of the appellants that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger on a valid journey ticketand, on account of a sudden jerk, while he was standing near the door of the compartment, he fell from the train and sustained fatal injuries, due to which, he died on spot.

3. The claim petition came to be dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment/order dated 22.03.2018, on the ground that the appellants had failed to establish the genuineness of the journey ticket, as well as the circumstances in which the alleged incident had occurred. While returning the said findings, the Tribunal also issued a show cause notice to the appellants as to why proceedings under Section 340 CrPC should not initiated against them.

Pursuant to the reply submitted by the appellants, and after due consideration, the Tribunal, vide order dated 27.06.2018, directed initiation of proceedings by lodging a complaint before the concerned Judicial Magistrate.

4. Insofar as the challenge to the dismissal of the claim petition is concerned, the principal issue that the Tribunal dealt with was the inconsistency as to how the journey was undertaken, as pleaded by the appellants, and the location where the body of the deceased was recovered. The appellants had set up a case that the deceased was travelling from Lucknow to New Delhi on the strength of a journey ticket bearing No. 46359950.A perusal of the said ticket, however, revealed that the route reflected therein was via Kanpur - Ghaziabad - Tilak Bridge, whereas the body of the deceased was found between Pilkhuwa and Dasna, which does not fall on the said route, and this discrepancy was not a minor irregularity but went to the root of the matter, as the very foundation of the claim rested upon the deceased being a bona fide passenger travel