The court ordered Western Railway to pay Rs 4 lakh as compensation, along with 6 percent annual interest calculated from the date of the incident. However, the total payout has been capped at Rs 8 lakh. The court further directed that the amount must be disbursed within 12 weeks after the parents formally file their claim.
A key aspect of the ruling was the High Court’s reliance on the testimony of the deceased’s companion, who witnessed the fall. The court observed that the evidence clearly established that the deceased fell accidentally due to overcrowding in the moving train. While such lapses in evaluating evidence typically result in cases being remanded to the tribunal, the court chose to examine the evidence itself, citing the prolonged delay since 2009 and the need to avoid further litigation.
According to a report by The Times of India, the victim’s parents, Rayappa and Victorya Chetiyar, had approached the High Court in 2017 after their claim was rejected by the tribunal. The tribunal had concluded that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the incident did not qualify as an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, thereby denying compensation.
The High Court overturned this finding, noting that two valid tickets from Goregaon to Churchgate were recovered from the deceased. This directly contradicted the tribunal’s conclusion that he was travelling without a ticket.
Western Railway had argued that the deceased died while trespassing and crossing the tracks, a claim earlier accepted by the tribunal. The railway authorities stated that pedestrians frequently crossed at the location and that the body was found under a train on a fast track. However, the High Court rejected this argument, citing a lack of concrete evidence. It emphasized that the mere existence of trespassing at the location did not establish that the deceased had been crossing the tracks at the time of the incident.
The court also highlighted inconsistencies in the railway authorities’ case, particularly the absence of details such as the train number involved. It observed that given the precise recording of train movements, such information should have been readily available, especially since the body was discovered near Platform 3.
The ruling marks a significant intervention by the High Court in correcting judicial oversight, reinforcing the importance of evidence-based adjudication, and delivering long-awaited relief to the family after years of legal struggle.
About The Author
Comment List