JUDGMENT

CM APPL. 6674/2022 (delay of 598 days in filing the appeal)

1. By way of the present application, the applicant/ appellant seeks condonation of delay of 598 days in filing the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after passing of the judgment dated 20.12.2019, the appellant was unable to file the appeal within the prescribed time. It is further submitted that the appellant belongs to an economically weaker section, anddue 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 India¹(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 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. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay of 598 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

6. The application is disposed of in the above terms.

FAO 25/2022

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway ClaimsTribunal Act, 1987, against the judgment dated 20.12.2019, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, in Claim Application No. OA (IIu) No. GZB/182/2016 titled as “Ms. Reshma vs. Union of India”.

2. Vide the judgment dated 24.05.2019, the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”), while deciding the claim application, held the appellant to be a bona fide passenger, however, dismissed the claim on the ground that the injuries sustained did not fall within the ambit of an “untoward incident” as defined under the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

The review application preferred by the appellant against the said order was thereafter dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi.

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the claim application, are that on 05.12.2015, one Ms. Reshma was travelling from Kashipur to Pipalsana by the Kashipur - Moradabad Passenger Train, on the strength of a valid journey ticket. It is stated that, during the course of the said journey, while alighting at the Pipalsana Railway Station, she accidentally fell down from the train and sustained grievous injuries, including amputation of her left leg.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment by contending that the Tribunal, having returned a finding that the appellant was a bona fide passenger, erred in denying compensation on an erroneous understanding of the expression “untoward incident”. It is submitted that the contemporaneous record, including the station diary entry dated 05.12.2015, clearly records that a lady passenger fell from Train No. 55312 shortly after its departure from Pipalsana and was thereafter shifted to the hospital. It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to accord due weight to the said contemporaneous record as well as the consistent testimony of the appellant, and instead placed reliance on the DRM inquiry officials, which does not conclusively establish the manner of the occurrence. It is urged that the finding of the Tribunal that the act of de-boarding a train constitutes a “self-inflicted injury” is contrary to the settled position of law. The nature of injuries, as borne out from the medical record and the disability certificate issued by the competent authority, recording below-knee amputation with 55% permanent disability, is also consistent with a fall from a moving train and supports the occurrence of a railway accident during the course of the journey.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that the Tribun