* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 25.03.2026 Pronounced on : 17.04.2026 Uploaded on : 17.04.2026 + FAO 202/2019 BEENA RANI & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Yogesh Swaroop, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Bhagwan Swaroop Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Pradyumen Singh and Mr. Yash, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

CM APPL. 21833/2019 (seeking condonation of delay of 394 days in filing the appeal)

1. By way of the present application, the applicants/ appellants seek condonation of delay of 394 days in filing the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant (Smt. Beena Devi), being the widow of the deceased, was left in a state of financial distress after the demise of her husband and was solely responsible for maintaining her family. Owing to her precarious financial condition and lack of proper legal assistance, the appellant could not immediately take steps to challenge the impugned order. It is only upon receiving assistance through known persons that the appellant was able to approach counsel and complete the necessary formalities for filing the present appeal.

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

394 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

6. The application is disposed of accordingly.

FAO 202/2019

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 19.07.2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(U)/230/2016, titled as “Smt. Beena Rani & Ors. vs. Union of India”.

2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal held the alleged incident to be an “untoward incident” as defined under the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), however, it dismissed the claim application filed by the appellants herein on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as defined under the Act.

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the appellants before the Tribunal, are that on 21.03.2016, one Sh. Sanjeev @ Pilu (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was travelling from Delhi to Ailum Halt by Train No. 51913, Delhi-Saharanpur Passenger Train, after purchasing a valid second-class journey ticket, and while the said train reached the Delhi- Shahdara Railway Station, due to heavy rush and a sudden jerk, he fell from the moving train and sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was taken to GTB Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries in the early hours of

22.03.2016.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned judgment by contending that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim despite having returned a categorical finding that the incident in question was an “untoward incident”. It is submitted that the finding regarding the absence of bona fide travel is based solely on non-recovery of the journey ticket and alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of Dhir Singh, which do not go to the root of the matter. It is contended that the Tribunal has placed undue reliance on the DRM report, which is based on assumptions and is not supported by any direct evidence.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment by contending that no journey ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased, and that, the test