Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has once again pulled up the Western Railway for delaying a decision on enhancing compensation to a woman who has been in a vegetative state since 2017 after being hit by a railway-owned vehicle. The court questioned whether its order, requesting intervention by the Railway Minister, was ever brought to the Minister’s attention.
About The Case
The court was hearing an appeal filed by Western Railway challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s (MACT) enhanced compensation to the woman’s family. The victim, Nidhi Rajesh Jethmalani, then 25, was hit by a WR-owned Innova car on Marine Drive on May 28, 2017, while she was crossing the road near the Marine Plaza hotel.
In its appeal, WR argued contributory negligence, claiming Nidhi was using her mobile phone and crossing when the pedestrian signal was not green. The railway’s counsels, G.S. Hegde and T.J. Pandian, said the vehicle was traveling at 35-40 kmph and the driver tried to avoid hitting her, eventually crashing into a divider. They contended that the MACT’s compensation award was excessive and that WR could not be held entirely liable.
In February 2021, MACT awarded the woman Rs 69.92 lakh with interest and sanctioned an additional Rs 1.5 crore corpus for future medical expenses. Her father, through Advocates Saumen Vidyarthi and Rushabh Vidyarthi, later sought enhanced compensation, stating Nidhi had been en route to K.C. College to seek Class 12 admission when the accident occurred.
On March 6 this year, the HC had directed that the matter be placed before the Railway Minister, stating that the case involved “day-to-day human suffering” and warranted humanitarian consideration. Despite assurances from the Railways that the matter was under review, the court observed that it was unclear whether the file had even reached the Minister.
The bench, on 25, reiterated its request and directed the General Manager or a competent officer to file an affidavit stating the date the file was placed before the Minister. It expressed “serious doubt” that the Minister had been informed at all, calling it “an eminent possibility” that the direction had not been followed.
The court has kept the matter for hearing on May 2.
