* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 13.04.2026 Pronounced on : 15.04.2026 Uploaded on : 15.04.2026 + FAO 38/2023 JAGDISH MISHRA & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood, Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Mr.

Amit Kumar Rana, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

CM APPL. 7654/2023 (Seeking condonation of delay of 200 days in filing the appeal)

1. By way of the present application, the applicants/ appellants seek condonation of delay of 200 days in filing the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that appellants are poor and illiterate persons, and belong to an economically weaker section and, due to paucity of funds, were unable to get in contact with a counsel and obtain timely legal advice.

3. It is noteworthy that in “Mohsina vs. Union of India”, (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 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 appellants have been able to show sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present appeal.

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

200 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

6. The application is disposed of accordingly.

FAO 38/2023

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 30.03.2022 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(U)/144/2021, titled as “Sh. Jagdish Mishra & Ors. vs. Union of India”.

2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by the appellants 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 stated in the claim application, are that on 19.12.2011, one Sh. Abhay Kumar Mishra (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”), along with his maternal aunt and one Sh. Vivek, had booked a train journey from Delhi to Siwan by Train No. 15708 (Amrapali Express) on the strength of a reserved journey ticket bearing No. 66543091, under PNR No. 2430180156, however, owing to heavy fog, the said train was delayed and was boarded by them on 20.12.2011, and during the course of the said journey, the deceased accidentally fell from the running train near Jaswant Nagar Railway Station, as a result of which, he sustained fatal injuries and died.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned judgment by contending that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim despite sufficient material on record establishing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and had suffered an accidental fall from a running train. It is submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the contemporaneous railway record, including the Station Master’s memo, which constitutes the earliest account of the incident, and has instead placed undue reliance on the DRM report prepared after an inordinate delay of more than nine years. It is further submitted that the non-recovery of the journey ticket cannot be treated as fatal to the claim, particularly when the appellants have placed on record the ticket particulars as well as the PNR details. It is contended that once the initial burden stood discharged, the onus shifted upon the Railways to disprove the case, which it has failed to do.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment by contending that no journ