Sukhmandar Singh vs. Union of India
Background
A young man who had come to Delhi looking for work fell from a crowded EMU train and suffered devastating injuries, including amputation of both legs below the knee. The Railway Claims Tribunal rejected his compensation claim, doubting he was a genuine passenger (no ticket recovered) and suggesting he had instead been "run over" while trespassing on the tracks. The appeal to the High Court itself was filed 786 days late.
Decision Breakdown
The Court first condoned the 786-day delay, emphasizing that railway compensation law is a social welfare measure deserving a liberal approach to procedural delays, especially for poor claimants. On the merits, the Court held the appellant was a bona fide passenger based on his and his uncle's consistent testimony that a ticket had been purchased, and found the Tribunal's "trespasser run over" theory was unsupported by any eyewitness evidence: merely finding the body near a shunting track did not rule out an accidental fall from a passenger train. The appeal was allowed and the case remanded for compensation assessment.
Lesson Learnt
Courts apply a lenient, welfare-oriented standard both to delays in filing railway compensation appeals from poor or disadvantaged claimants, and to evaluating whether an accident victim was a genuine passenger: minor inconsistencies or gaps in evidence shouldn't automatically defeat a genuine claim.