Compensation claims under beneficial welfare legislation require a liberal, justice-oriented approach where genuine claims for untoward incidents regarding train travel should not be defeated by technicalities, procedural suspicions, or minor discrepancies in evidence recovery, provided the substantive occurrence is established by official records.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

CM APPL. 48717/2019 (Seeking condonation of delay of 249 days in filing the appeal)

1. By way of the present application, the appellants seek condonation of delay of 249 days in filing the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants 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. The Railways Act, 1989 and the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 arise out 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.

5. 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.

6. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed and the delay of 249 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

7. The application is disposed of accordingly.

FAO 440/2019

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against the judgment dated 27.11.2018, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(u)/59/2018.

2. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that the appellant was neither a bona fide passenger nor did the incident come within the ambit of an “untoward incident” as defined under the Railways Act, 189 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

3. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the claim application are that on 18.12.2017, one Jitender (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was travelling from Shivaji Bridge to Ballabgarh on the strength of a valid journey ticket. It was alleged that when the train reached near Faridabad Yard, the deceased accidentally fell from the running train and sustained fatal injuries, as a result of which he died on spot.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition despite the fact that a valid railway ticket bearing No.11346096 was recovered from the person of the deceased during jamatalashi proceedings, which stands corroborated by the statement of ASI Kripal Singh, GRP, and ASI Dharamveer Singh, RPF. Learned counsel further submits that the Station Master memo dated 18.12.2017, the Inquest Report and the post-mortem report support the case of accidental fall from train. It is argued that even the post-mortem report records that the “possibility of railway accident cannot be ruled out” and the SHO opinion in the inquest report specifically records that the death occurred due to railway accident.

5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and had died