Smt. Savita Ben vs Union Of India

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86310
1 MA-1317-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
th
ON THE 27 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 1317 of 2016
CNR No.: MPHC010257962016
SMT. SAVITA BEN
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Appearance:
Mr. Aman Soni - Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Satyendra Kumar Patel - Advocate for the respondent/ Union of
India.
ORDER
This miscellaneous appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987, has been preferred by the appellant Smt. Savita Ben,
challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 05.11.2015 passed by
the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT), Bhopal Bench, in Claim Case No.
OA/IIu/BPL/2012/565. By the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the
Appellant’s application under Rule 26(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal
(Procedure) Rules, 1989, seeking substitution of legal representatives, and
consequently dismissed the main claim application.
2. The brief facts of the claimant's case are that on 17.12.2011, the original
claimant, late Shri Naththa Bhai (husband of the Appellant), was travelling
on Train No. 59831 (Vadodara-Kota Express) along with his family
members. He was in possession of a valid second-class general ticket. Due to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH
Signing time: 10/30/2026
10:35:14 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86310
2 MA-1317-2016
a heavy rush, pushing, and a sudden jerk of the train, he accidentally fell

from the running train at Bamniya Railway Station and sustained grievous
injuries. The incident was reported, and a criminal case was registered at P.S.
Ratlam. Shri Naththa Bhai subsequently filed a claim petition before the
RCT for compensation. However, during the pendency of the claim petition,
he expired on 18.08.2013. Following his death, the Appellant (his widow)
filed an application under Rule 26(2) of the RCT (Procedure) Rules to be
substituted as his legal representative on record, supported by an affidavit
and death certificate.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that husband of the
appellant/ original claimant suffered grievous injuries in this accident
resulting in amputation of right leg. He further submits that counsel for the
appellant came to know about the death of the appellant/ original claimant
only in August, 2015. Being poor labourers, his party has to migrate
frequently in search of work. The delay was not intentional or malafide but
occurred due to a lack of communication, poverty, and ignorance of legal
procedures. He, therefore, prays for condoning the delay and remanding the
matter back to the Tribunal for proper adjudication.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/ Union of India supports the
impugned order and prays for dismissal of the instant appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The learned Tribunal rejected the substitution application primarily on
the ground of delay. The Tribunal observed that while the original applicant
passed away on 18.08.2013, the substitution application was filed on
17.08.2015 i.e. after a delay of almost two years, far exceeding the 90-day
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH
Signing time: 10/30/2026
10:35:14 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86310
3 MA-1317-2016
limitation period prescribed under Rule 26(1) of the RCT (Procedure)

Rules. However, upon perusing the appeal memo, the application for
condonation of delay, and the supporting affidavit (Annexure A/2), it is
evident that the appellant and the deceased belonged to a marginalized socio-
economic background, working as daily wage labourers who frequently
migrated in search of work. As alleged the appellant’s counsel was unaware
of the original claimant's death until August, 2015 when he attempted to
contact him to appear for evidence. The Railway Claims Tribunal Act is a
beneficial piece of legislation intended to provide speedy relief to victims of
railway accidents and their dependents. The Tribunal erred in adopting a
hyper-technical approach by dismissing the claim outright without
considering the merits of the case or the genuine, practical difficulties faced
by the widow of the deceased claimant.
7. In view of the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the delay in filing the substitution application deserves to be
condoned in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The
impugned order dated 05.11.2015 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bhopal Bench, in Claim Case No. OA/IIu/BPL/2012/565, is hereby set
aside. The application filed by the Appellant under Rule 26(2) of the RCT
(Procedure) Rules is allowed, and the delay is condoned. The Appellant, Smt.
Savita Ben, is permitted to be brought on record as the legal representative of
the deceased original claimant, Shri Naththa Bhai. The matter is remanded
back to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, with a direction to
restore Claim Case No. OA/IIu/BPL/2012/565 to its original number and
proceed to adjudicate the claim on its merits, in accordance with the law,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH
Signing time: 10/30/2026
10:35:14 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86310
4 MA-1317-2016
after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to both parties.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and disposed of.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
VSG

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH
Signing time: 10/30/2026
10:35:14 AM