$~25 * IN THEHIGHCOURTOF DELHIATNEW DELHI + FAO 94/2022 SMT.SUNITA DEVI & ORS. .....Appellant Through: Mr. Prashant Kumar Shisodia, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 20.07.2026 1. The present appeal, filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) is directed against the order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. MA/GZB/2019/011, whereby, the claim application filed on behalf of the appellant/Sunita Devi being the widow of Sh. Jugan Pal(hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) came to be dismissed only on the ground of limitation. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned order, submits that the Tribunal dismissed the claim application and the application seeking condonation of delaywithout citing any cogent reasons. It is submitted that despite the explanation furnished by the claimants explaining the delay, the Tribunal failed to consider the same. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, opposes the same and seeks dismissal of the present appeal. 4. Briefly stated, the claim application came to be filed by the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 11:57:03 appellants/claimants, being the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased, seeking compensation under the Railways Act, 1989, in respect of his death while allegedly undertaking a journey from Chola to Khurja on 05.03.2015. 5. The claimants are the residents of Village Majoorpur Sabalpur, P.S. Pisawa, District Aligarh (U.P.). Appellant No.1 is the widow of the deceased and appellant Nos.2 to 4 are his three minor children, and appellant No.5 is his mother. In the application seeking condonation of delay, the appellants explained that, following the death of the sole bread-earner of the family, appellant No.1 was saddled with the responsibility of maintaining the entire family, including her three minor children and aged mother-in-law. It was further stated that the appellants, being residents of a remote village, were unaware of their legal rights and the remedy available before the Tribunal. They approached the Tribunal only after they were informed about the same by one Lekhpal from a neighbouring village. 6. Section 17(1)(b) of the Act provides that an application under Section 13 (1A) shall ordinarily be made within one year from the date of the accident. However, Section 17(2) empowers the Tribunal to entertain an application even after the expiry of the prescribed period, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the stipulated time. 7. It is also pertinent to note that this Court has, in a catena of decisions, condoned similar delays where sufficient cause has been shown, particularly having regard to the beneficial nature of the legislation. In “Bhojiya Khatun &Anr. v. Union of India” (FAO 317/2022, decided on 20.03.2026), this Court condoned a delay of 5 years, 6 months and 17 daysin filing the claim application and reiterated that the Railways Act, 1989 and the Railway This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 11:57:03 Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 are beneficial and social welfare legislations, and that genuine claims ought not to be defeated on technical grounds. The Court also noticed that, in “Poonam v. Union of India”, a delay of 4 years, 9 months and 29 days in filing the claim application had been condonedupon sufficient cause being shown. 8. 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 case for the delay in filing the claim application. 9. In view of the above, the delay in filing the claim application is condoned and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law. 10. The claim application is restored to its original number and let the same be listed before the Tribunal at the first instance on 11.08.2026. 11. The registry shall ensure that a copy of this order is communicated to the Tribunal for necessary information. 12. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J JULY 20, 2026 sn This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 11:57:03