* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 06.04.2026 Pronounced on : 07.04.2026 Uploaded on : 07.04.2026 + FAO 476/2019 RAKESH @ RAJU .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood and Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Ms.Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Ms.Kiran Dharam, Mr. Shailednra Kumar Mishra and Ms. Upanita S., Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

CM APPL. 51620/2019 (Seeking condonation of delay of 922 days in filing the appeal)

1. By way of the present application, theappellant seeks condonation of delay of 922 days in filing the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellantsubmits that the appellantbelongs 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 further submitted that the appellant had suffered grievous injuries resulting in a permanent disability, and was undergoing prolonged medical treatment and rehabilitation. Owing to his precarious physical condition, coupled with financial constraints, the appellant was not in a position to pursue legal remedies within the prescribed period.

4. It is noteworthy that in “Mohsina vs. Union of India” ¹, 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. Similarly, this Court in “Shalini Gihar vs. Union of India” ², allowed the application, and a delay of 1122 days was condoned, considering the financial hardship of the appellants and the surrounding circumstances.

5. The Railways Act, 1989 and the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 ariseout of beneficial and social welfare legislation intended to provide compensation to victims of railway accidents and untoward incidents. In such matters, a liberal and justice-oriented approach is required while considering applications for condonation of delay so that genuine claims are not defeated on technical grounds.

6. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, and guided by the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, 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.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed and the delay of

922 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

8. The application is disposed of accordingly.

1 (2017) SCC OnLine Del 10003

2 (2023) SCC OnLine Del 3193 FAO 476/2019

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the impugned judgment dated 17.02.2017 passed bythe Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application OA II(u) No. 195/2015,whereby the claim application filed by the appellant seeking injury compensation was dismissed.

2. The case of the appellant, in brief, is that on 20.06.2015, while travelling from Old Delhi Railway Station towards Shahdara by a passenger train, he allegedly fell from the train near Red Fort due to a sudden jerk and sustained grievous injuries, resulting in amputation of both the legs.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment contending that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the claimwhile overlooking the material on record. It was submitted that the injuries sustained by the appellant, including amputation of both legs, stand duly established from the medical record. Learned counsel further contended that the appellant had discharged the initial burden by producing the Monthly Season Ticket (MST) bearing No. 11ZQB9P194, and the minor discrepancies in the name ought not to have been given undue weight, particularly in a beneficial legislation.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the appellant failed to establish the foundational requirement of