SMT SAVITA & Ors. v. UNION OF INDIA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 11. By way of the present application, theappellantseeks condonation of delay of 7 days in filing the appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the delay of 7 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The application…
Judgment
Through: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, SPC for UOI with Ms. Manpreet Kour, Mr. Sachin Singh, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGMENT CM APPL. 31089/2022 (seeking condonation of delay of 7 days in filing the appeal)
#1. By way of the present application, theappellantseeks condonation of delay of 7 days in filing the appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the delay of 7 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The application is disposed of accordingly. FAO 193/2022 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against the judgment dated 08.03.2022, passed bythe Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(u)/DLI/283/2019. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:21.05.2026 17:57:24 FAO 193/2022 Page 1 of 5
#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 necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that on 08.10.2018,one Rajendra (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”)was travelling fromBallabhgarhtoDelhiafter purchasing a valid journey ticket. During the course of the said journey, he accidentally fell from the train near Okhla and sustained serious injuries on his head, as a result of which, he died on the spot. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has discarded documentary evidence and that the contemporaneous railway and police records consistently establish recovery of a valid railway ticket from the person of the deceased and also records that the deceased had fallen while travelling from Ballabhgarh towards Delhi. He further submits that the journey ticket recovered from the deceased stood verified by the railway authorities themselves and, therefore, the finding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger is entirely unsustainable. Reliance has been placed upon Union of India v. Rina Devi1, Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar &Ors2.and Sh. Surendra Prasad Verma v. Union of India3. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that the exact train involved in the incident could not be identified and no eyewitness has stated having seen the
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 — s. 23.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Delhi High Court, on 21 May 2026. The bench was MANOJ KUMAR OHRI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.