Veeran Devi vs Union Of India & Anr

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 18.08.2026
Pronounced on : 02.09.2026
Uploaded on : 02.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010462252019

+ FAO 466/2019

VEERAN DEVI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Yogesh Swaroop, Mr. Alok
Kumar, Ms. Shivangi Singh and
Ms. Bhawna Tandon,
Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Jagdish Chandra, CGSC
alongwith Ms. Aishwarya
Singh, Ms. Maanya Saxena and
Mr. Lakshay Kumar, Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

CM APPL. 50911/2019 (seeking condonation of delay of 299 days
in filing the appeal)

1. By way of the present application, the applicant/ appellant seeks
condonation of delay of 299 days in filing the appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the delay in filing
the present appeal occurred as the appellant is an illiterate lady who,
after losing her elder son, has been under severe mental, physical,
Signature Not Verified
FAO 466/2019 Page 1 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:02.09.2026
18:51:45

social and financial distress and is struggling to meet her basic needs.
It is submitted that, being without any technical or special education
and having no proper guidance regarding the procedure and limitation
for filing an appeal against the order of the RCT, the appellant could
not file the present appeal within the prescribed period. It is further
submitted that upon subsequently becoming aware of the necessity of
challenging the impugned order, the appellant took steps to file the
present appeal. The delay is neither wilful nor deliberate, but
occasioned by the aforesaid bona fide circumstances.
1
3. It is noteworthy that in “ Mohsina vs. Union of India ” , 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
2
appellant/ claimant. Similarly, in “ Reshma vs. Union of India ” ,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. 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.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed and the delay
of 299 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
6. The application is disposed of accordingly.

1
(2017) SCC OnLine Del 10003
2
FAO 25/2022
Signature Not Verified
FAO 466/2019 Page 2 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:02.09.2026
18:51:45

FAO 466/2019
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated
06.04.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in O.A. No. OA(IIu)
131/2017, whereby the claim application filed by the appellant seeking
compensation on account of the death of her son came to be dismissed.
The appellant thereafter preferred a Review Application, which was
dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 19.09.2018. The present
appeal assails the aforesaid judgment and order.

2. The case of the appellant, in brief, is that on 28.09.2016, one
Ramu (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was travelling along
with his younger brother, Shyam , from Shakur Basti to Delhi and
thereafter by Train No. 14056 ( Brahmaputra Express) from Delhi to
Achalda . It is averred that the deceased was travelling on the strength
of a valid second class journey ticket and during the course of the said
travel,due to a sudden jerk and push from the co-passengers, the
deceased lost his balance and fell from the moving train, sustaining
fatal injuries.
3. The Tribunaldismissed the claim application holding, inter alia ,
that the deceased was not established to be a bona fide passenger and
that his death had not been shown to have occurred in an “untoward
incident” as defined in the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to
as the “Act”). Additionally, the Tribunal, while dismissing the review,
again referred to the timing of the journey ticket and concluded that
the incident could not be attributed to the said train.
Signature Not Verified
FAO 466/2019 Page 3 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:02.09.2026
18:51:45

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased
was travelling with his brother Shyam on a valid journey ticket, which
was recovered from his pocket during the inquest proceedings. It was
submitted that the statement of Shyam recorded during the inquest
proceedings supports the appellant’s case and that the Tribunal failed
to appreciate the contemporaneous record while holding that the
deceased was not a bona fide passenger. It was further submitted that
the Guard of Train No. 14056 had informed the Dy. Station
Superintendent, Shikohabad , that a passenger had “fallen from the
train” and that the said contemporaneous record could not have been
disregarded.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
supported the impugned judgment and contended that the
circumstances surrounding the journey, including the time of purchase
of the ticket, the statement and conduct of Shyam , and the TSR
showing no extra detention of Train No. 14056 at Shikohabad , create a
serious doubt regarding the alleged fall from the train. It was further
submitted that the nature of the injuries and the manner in which the
body was found support the possibility of the deceased having been
run over while crossing the railway track.
6. At the outset, it is not in dispute that a journey ticket bearing
No. I-92390314 was recovered from the pocket of the deceased during
the inquest proceedings and was thereafter verified by the Railway
authorities. The recovery was, thus,recorded contemporaneously with
the occurrence and there is no material to suggest that the ticket was
fabricated or planted. The factum of recovery of the ticket from the
Signature Not Verified
FAO 466/2019 Page 4 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:02.09.2026
18:51:45

person of the deceased, therefore, assumes significance while
considering his status as a bona fide passenger.
7. Admittedly, Shyam , the younger brother of the deceased,
examined as AW-2, stated that he was travelling with the deceased
after purchasing a valid journey ticket and heidentified his body after
the occurrence. His statement cannot be viewed in isolation, as his
presence is also reflected in the inquest proceedings, where he was
associated as a pancha . The omission to mention his presence in the
claim application, by itself, cannot be made the basis for discarding his
testimony when his association with the inquest proceedings and
identification of the deceased are borne out from the contemporaneous
record. His statement, read with the recovery of the journey ticket
from the deceased, supports the appellant’s case that the deceased was
travelling by train.
8. At this stage, it is apposite to note that in “ Union of India v.
3
Rina Devi ” , the Supreme Court has held that the initial burden of
establishing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger lies upon the
claimant and can be discharged by placing the relevant facts and
circumstances on record. The same principle has also been reiterated
4
in “ Lata v. Union of India ” .
In the present case, the recovery of the journey ticket from the
deceased, its subsequent verification by the Railway authorities and
the statement of Shyam recorded during the inquest proceedings, when
read together, sufficiently discharge the initial burden. There is no

3
(2019) 3 SCC 572
4
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350
Signature Not Verified
FAO 466/2019 Page 5 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:02.09.2026
18:51:45

material of sufficient weight placed by the respondent to rebut these
circumstances.
9. Coming next question on the issue whether his death occurred in
an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Act, the
contemporaneous railway record assumes significance in this regard.
The Dy. Station Superintendent, Shikohabad , was informed by the
Guard of Train No. 14056 that a passenger had “fallen from the train
and had been cut”, which was recorded in the memo dated 29.09.2016
at about 06:30 hours. No material has been placed on record to show
that the said information was incorrect or that the Guard had reported
any other manner of occurrence.
10. The timing of the journey ticket, by itself, does not alter the
aforesaid position. The ticket was purchased at 18:59 hours on
28.09.2016, while Train No. 14056 was scheduled to depart from Old
Delhi at 23:40 hours. The fact that the ticket was purchased earlier in
the evening does not establish that the deceased did not subsequently
board the said train. Likewise, the TSR showing arrival of Train No.
14056 at Shikohabad at 06:26 hours and departure at 06:28 hours,
without extra detention, cannot by itself rule out a fall from the train.
5
This Court in, “ Kari Devi &Ors. v. Union of India ” , while
considering a similar objection regarding the timing of a journey
ticket, attached significance to the contemporaneous record and
declined to displace the same on the basis of an inference unsupported
by cogent material.
11. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and keeping in mind the

5
2026 SCC OnLine Del 5641
Signature Not Verified
FAO 466/2019 Page 6 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:02.09.2026
18:51:45

beneficial nature of the legislation, the claim cannot be rejected on the
basis of conjectures as to the manner in which the incident occurred.
12. 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
21.09.2026.
13. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

14. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned
Tribunal.

(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 02, 2026
na
Signature Not Verified
FAO 466/2019 Page 7 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:02.09.2026
18:51:45