JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

CM APPL. 33496/2020 (seeking condonation of delay of 832 days in filing the present appeal)

1. By way of the present application, the appellant/applicant seeks condonation of delay of 832 days in filing the present appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after the passing of the impugned judgment dated 24.05.2018, the appellant was unable to file the appeal within the prescribed time. The appellant, who is an illiterate woman, is a resident of Village Farmana Khas, Rohtak (Haryana), and was not aware of the technicalities of the limitation period to file an appeal, and once it came to her notice, there was a lockdown and she went to her native village.

3. It is further submitted 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, as she had been in a traumatized condition due to the sudden death of her only son and subsequent death of her husband.

4. 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.

5. Considering the 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 appellant has been able to show sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present appeal.

6. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay of 832 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

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

FAO 246/2020

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 24.05.2018, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application no. OA (IIu) 236/2017.

2. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the claim application came to be filed seeking compensation on account of the death of one Sh. Anil Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”), an Army personnel (Sepoy). It was claimed that on 15.03.2011, the deceased had undertaken a journey from Hazarat Nizamuddin to Old Delhi Railway Station, whereafter, he had to travel from Old Delhi Railway Station to Ghewra. It was further claimed that on said date, in morning, the deceased had reached Ghewra and thereafter had to go to Nehru Palace and was required to return back by evening. He purchased two tickets bearing no. 45015384 and 45015385, on the said date, each for travelling from Ghewra to Tuglaqabad and from Tuglaqabad to Ghewra.

It was the case of the appellant that the deceased boarded a local train, and owing to heavy rush inside the compartment, due to a sudden jerk and push by passengers inside the compartment, the deceased accidentally fell from the running train near Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station and suffered fatal injuries.

3. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the claim application by observing that the appellant/claimant failed to prove the bona fide status of the deceased, as the Tribunal not only doubted the version set up in the claim application, but also the investigation conducted by the Investigation Officer, SI Ram Avatar, who had initially treated the body to be that of an unknown person.

The Tribunal further observed that though the Investigating Officer later claimed recovery of railway tickets, ATM card and other identity documents from the deceased, no seizure memo thereof was prepared.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimants cannot be non-suited merely on account of deficiencies or irregularities in the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer. He further submits that the Tribunal has misdirected itself by placing undue emphasis on the conduct of the Investigating Officer in no