Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
KARI DEVI & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Yogesh Swaroop, Mrs. Shahnoor Fatima and Ms. Shivangi Singh, Advocates
Through: Mr. Abhishek Saket, SPCG with Mr.Manish Madhukar, Mr. Abhigyan and Ms. Reya Paul, Advocates
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present application, the applicant/ appellant seeks condonation of delay of 493 days in filing the appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the delay in filing the present appeal was occasioned as the appellant, being an illiterate and financially constrained widow residing at Village Nizampur, District Arwal, Bihar, was not aware of the technicalities relating to the period of limitation and could not immediately take steps for obtaining the certified copy of the impugned judgment. It is submitted that the appellant thereafter contacted the counsel, whereupon the certified copy and other necessary documents were obtained and, owing to the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and the consequent lockdown, the present appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period. The delay is bona fide and unintentional.
3. It is noteworthy that in “Mohsina vs. Union of India”1, 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. Similarly, in “Reshma vs. Union of India”2,this Court condoned a delay of 598 days in filing the appeal, keeping in view the beneficial nature of the legislation and the liberal approach required in such matters.
4. Furthermore, it is relevant to note that the Supreme Court in, In Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 (Order dated 10.01.2022), bearing in mind the difficulties faced by the litigants, directed that the period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of computing limitation.
5. 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 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 493 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
7. The application is disposed of accordingly.
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway
FAO 25/2022 Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 19.05.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA (IIu) 68/2012, titled as “Smt. Kari Devi v. Union of India”.
2. The claim application was filed by the appellant seeking compensation under the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) on account of the death of her husband, Late Sh. Ranjeet Chaudhary (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”), in an incident which occurred on 30.03.2011. It was the appellant’s case that the deceased, after purchasing a valid journey ticket bearing No. 57257 from Anand Vihar to Ghaziabad, boarded an EMU train andowing to heavy rush and a sudden jerk, accidentally fell from the moving train near Electric Pole No. 7/26-G, Anand Vihar Railway Station, resulting in his death.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the recovery of the journey ticket from the deceased stands duly proved from the police record and that the Tribunal wrongly relied upon the DRM report to conclude that the ticket had been issued after the occurrence of the incident in question. It is further submitted that the finding that the deceased was trespassing on the railway track is unsupported by any cogent evidence and is contrary to the material available on record.
4. The respondent contested the claim by asserting that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor had he died in an “untoward incident”. It was pleaded that although a journey ticket was recovered from the deceased, the same had allegedly been issued after the occurrence. It was further contended that the deceased had unauthorisedly crossed the railway track and was hit by an unknown train.
5. Upon appreciation of the material on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger and nordid the alleged incident did not fall within the definition of an “untoward incident” under the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred.
6. I have heard arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
7. The principal question that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that his death did not result from an “untoward incident”. Since the finding regarding the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger forms the foundation of the impugned judgment, the same is examined first.
8. The Tribunal has denied the status of a bona fide passenger to the deceased on the premise that although Journey Ticket No. 57257 (Anand Vihar-Ghaziabad) was shown to have been recovered during the inquest proceedings, the said ticket could not have been used by the deceased for the journey in question as, according to the respondent, it had been issued after 6:00 p.m., whereas the occurrence had taken place at about 1:25 p.m. Proceeding on this basis, the Tribunal went to the extent of observing that the ticket appeared to have been manipulated and planted.
9. The foundation of the aforesaid finding is the testimony of Shri AnilKumar (RW-1), the Contractor at Anand Vihar Halt Station, who produced the DTC Register for 30.03.2011. The register merely records that ticket numbers 57037 to 57286, i.e., 250 tickets, were issued from Anand Vihar to Ghaziabad on the said date. Since the recovered ticket bore No. 57257, the Tribunal calculated it to be the 220th ticket issued during the day. Thereafter, relying upon the estimate furnished by RW-1 regarding the average sale of tickets during different time slots, it concluded that the 220th ticket would ordinarily have been issued after 6:00 p.m.
10. In the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid reasoning overlooks a significant aspect of RW-1’s own evidence. He did not produce any contemporaneous record reflecting the actual time at which Ticket NO. 57257 was issued. The DTC Register only records the serial numbers of tickets issued on a particular day and it does not record the time of issuance of each ticket. Even according to RW-1, the opinion that Ticket No. 57257 would have been issued after 6:00 p.m. was not based on any official record but on the average volume of ticket sales during different time slots. Thus, the timing attributed to the recovered ticket was only an estimate and not a fact borne out from the railway record.
11. Once this position is kept in view, the Tribunal’s conclusion that the ticket had been planted is difficult to be upheld asthere is a material distinction between an inference drawn from an estimate and a fact proved by officially maintained record. In the present case, the respondent did not produce any register, computer-generated record or other document showing the precise time at which Ticket No. 57257 was issued. In the absence of such evidence, the approximation given by RW-1 could not have been treated as conclusive so as to discard the recovery of the journey ticket itself and to attribute manipulation about the same.
12. Equally significant is the fact that the recovery of the ticket does not rest merely on the oral testimony of the claimant. The inquest proceedings commenced at about 1:25 p.m. on 30.03.2011, and the seizure memo prepared during those proceedings specifically records the recovery of one identity card and the Journey Ticket bearing No. 57257 from the person of the deceased. The same fact also finds mention in the inquest papers prepared contemporaneously with the occurrence. The respondent has led no evidence to establish that these documents were fabricated or prepared subsequently. Consequently, this Court is satisfied that the deceased was travelling on the strength of a valid journey ticket and was a bona fide passenger within the meaning of the Act.
13. Having held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, the next question for consideration is whether his death occurred in an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Act.
14. A perusal of the earliest record prepared after the occurrence would show that the case was investigated throughout as one involving an accidental fall from a train. On receipt of DD No.13A, the police reached the spot near Electric Pole No.7/26-G, Old AnandVihar Railway Station and conducted the inquest proceedings. During the course of the investigation, the statement of one Sh. Ram Khilawan, an alleged eye witness to the incident, was recorded, wherein he stated that at about 1:00 p.m. he had seen the deceased fall from an EMU train proceeding from Anand Vihar towards Ghaziabad. The death report was prepared on the same day and the journey ticket bearing No.57257 and other personal belongings were recovered from his person and, upon completion of the enquiry, the Investigating Officer also recorded that the deceased had fallen from an EMU train while travelling. Significantly, none of the documents prepared during the investigation records that the deceased was crossing the railway track.
15. The Tribunal has, however, discarded the aforesaid material solely because the body was found lying between the Up and Down railway lines. In the opinion of this Court, the said circumstance, by itself, could not have formed the basis for concluding that the deceased was crossing the railway track. This Court, in a catena of decisionshas consistently held that the earliest official record prepared immediately after the occurrence cannot be discarded in favour of assumptions or inferences unsupported by evidence. The respondent has also not produced any eyewitness who had seen the deceased trespassing on the railway line. Equally, neither the DD entries, nor the inquest proceedings, nor the police report prepared after investigation supports such a version.
16. The material on record, appreciated as a whole, establishes that the incident squarely falls within the ambit of an “untoward incident” as defined under the Act.
17. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal, which is requested to assess the amount of compensation payable to the appellants in accordance with law and direct the authorities concerned to disburse the same within two months from the receipt of a copy of this order. For this purpose, the matter be listed before the Tribunal at the first instance on 17.08.2026.
18. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
19. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Tribunal.
JUDGE JULY 30, 2026