Mumbai, March 10: The Indian Railways should not have forced the family of its own employee to litigate for compensation, observed the Bombay High Court while directing payment in a case involving the employee’s death after falling from a crowded train near Virar in 2010.
The court held that the incident clearly fell within the definition of an “untoward incident” under the law.
HC allows appeal against tribunal order
Justice Jitendra Jain, on Monday, allowed the appeal filed by the deceased employee’s family — Nagmani Ramnna Burumuri and Kumari Preety Ramnna Burumuri — challenging the 2015 order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, which had rejected their compensation claim of Rs 4 lakh.
Justice Jain also remarked that the railways should have granted compensation on their own. “Such matters where the employees of the railways themselves have died because of the accident should have never landed in this Court,” he said.
Tribunal relied on contradictory reports
The tribunal had relied on a station master’s memo, an inquest panchnama and a Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) report to conclude that the incident did not qualify as an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
According to the plea, the deceased was working in the commercial department of the railways and was posted at the Elphinstone Road office. On September 11, 2010, he travelled from Virar to report for the second shift. After finishing work, he boarded a train back to Virar around 3 am.
Court says victim was a bonafide passenger
As the train was approaching Virar station, he allegedly fell from the crowded compartment and suffered fatal injuries. He was declared dead upon arrival at a primary health centre in Virar.
The high court noted that there was no dispute that the deceased was a railway employee entitled to travel on a free railway pass. Justice Jain observed that merely because the pass was not recovered during the inquest could not mean that he was not a “bonafide passenger”.
“Merely because it was not found at the time of the accident or the deceased was not carrying it cannot be a ground for rejecting the claim,” the court said.
HC criticises reliance on conflicting documents
The judge also criticised the tribunal for relying on contradictory documents. The station master’s memo, inquest panchnama and DRM report each suggested different causes of death, including being hit by a train or trespassing.
“By no stretch of imagination could the Tribunal have given any credence to these reports which are self-contradictory,” the court observed.
Holding that the death occurred due to accidental falling from a moving train, the court ruled that it squarely qualified as an “untoward incident”.
Also Watch:
Compensation ordered with interest
The court directed the railways to pay Rs 4 lakh as compensation with 6% interest from the date of the accident, subject to a cap of Rs 8 lakh, within eight weeks after the claimants submit a fresh application.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
