* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 01.04.2026 Pronounced on : 20.04.2026 Uploaded on : 20.04.2026 + FAO 441/2019 SAMSUDDIN & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood, Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Ms. Uparita S and Mr. Shalendra Mishra, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

CM APPL. 48962/2019 (seeking condonation of delay of 316 days in filing the appeal)

1. By way of the present application, the applicants/ appellants seek condonation of delay of 316 days in filing the present appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits 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, (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 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. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed and the delay of

316 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

6. The application is disposed of accordingly.

FAO 441/2019

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 27.09.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(U)/23/2018, titled as “Shri. Samsuddin & Anr. 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 31.10.2017, one Sh. Shadab Khan (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was travelling from Hapur to Delhi on the strength of a valid second-class journey ticket. During the course of the said journey, while the train reached between Delhi-Shahdara Jn. and Delhi Railway Station, the deceased accidentally fell from the running train and sustained grievous injuries, resulting in his death at the spot.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned judgment by contending that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim application despite clear and cogent 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 a valid journey ticket was recovered from the possession of the deceased during jamatalashi, which conclusively establishes his status as a bona fide passenger. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has placed undue reliance on the DRM report, which is based on conjectures and was neither supported by any eyewitness account nor proved in accordance with law, while completely disregarding contemporaneous records including DD entries, recovery memo and medical evidence.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment by contending that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor did the alleged incident qualify as an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989. It is submitted that the circumstances on record, particularly the Train Signal Register (TSR) and the sequence of train movements, clearly indicate that the deceased was not travelling by any train at the relevant time and had instead suffered inju