Mumbai, May 4: The Bombay High Court has granted relief to the parents of a man who died after falling from a crowded suburban train in 2009, ruling that the incident qualifies as an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act and setting aside an earlier order denying compensation.
Court sets aside tribunal order
Justice Jitendra Jain allowed an appeal filed by the victim’s parents, observing that the Railway Claims Tribunal had ignored key evidence and reached conclusions not supported by the record. The court directed the Railways to pay Rs 4 lakh as compensation with 6% annual interest from the date of the accident, subject to a cap of Rs 8 lakh.
The case pertains to the death of Arogyaraj Chetiyar, who met with an accident near Jogeshwari railway station on June 20, 2009. He was first taken to Cooper Hospital and later shifted to KEM Hospital, where he died the same night.
Evidence establishes bona fide passenger status
The Tribunal had earlier rejected the family’s claim, holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the incident was not covered under the definition of an “untoward incident.” However, the High Court found these findings to be inconsistent and contrary to evidence.
The court noted that two valid train tickets from Goregaon to Churchgate were recovered from the deceased, clearly establishing his status as a bona fide passenger. It termed the Tribunal’s conclusion as “self-contradictory” and indicative of “non-application of mind.”
Testimony overlooked by tribunal
A key piece of evidence was the testimony of a co-passenger, who stated that both had boarded a train and that the deceased fell due to heavy rush near Jogeshwari. The High Court criticised the Tribunal for completely overlooking this testimony.
“The Tribunal gravely erred in not considering crucial evidence of the co-passenger,” the court observed, adding that remanding the case would only cause further delay in a matter pending since 2009.
Railways’ claim rejected
Rejecting the Railways’ claim that the deceased was trespassing on the tracks, the court pointed out that there was no eyewitness to support this version. It also noted that official records did not indicate that the man was hit while crossing the tracks.
Also Watch:
The court further said that the Railways’ case was based on “suspicion and surmises” rather than concrete evidence.
Holding that the sequence of events clearly indicated an accidental fall from a moving train, the High Court ruled in favour of the family and directed that the compensation be paid within 12 weeks.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
