Mumbai: Observing that there was no evidence shown by Central Railway that a 35-year-old man fell off the roof of a local train in Oct 2012, Bombay High Court directed it to pay his mother compensation.
“Respondent-railway shall pay compensation of Rs 4 lakh to the appellant along with interest from the date of the accident, ie, October 16, 2012, or Rs 8 lakh, whichever is higher, within a period of 8 weeks…,” directed Justice Sharmila Deshmukh on March 12. In the event of failure to pay within the prescribed time, HC said CR must “pay 6% interest per annum from the due date till the entire amount is realised”.
HC quashed and set aside the Railway Claims Tribunal’s Aug 23, 2021, verdict denying Geeta Devi Thakur’s claim on the ground that the death of her son, Anil Thakur, was not an untoward incident defined under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act.
Around 10:25 am, Anil fell from the train between Ulhasnagar and Ambarnath stations. The tribunal accepted Anil was a bona fide passenger. However, it relied on the station master’s memo that a guard informed that he fell while travelling on the train’s roof.
Agreeing with the mother’s advocate, Balasaheb Deshmukh, Justice Deshmukh said the inquest panchnama and the police report make it clear that Anil was found injured on the railway tracks after falling from the train.
CR produced no record that Anil fell while travelling on the train’s roof. “The records, which are official records, would make it evident that the injury was caused due to falling down from the train…,” she said.
Justice Deshmukh noted that CR’s “solitary defence” based on the station master’s memo about information given by the guard has not been proved.
“As the guard was easily available for the purpose of examination, the respondent-railway ought to have examined him in order to establish their defence, which has not been done in the present case,” she said. Further, in the absence of any evidence led by CR, “no reliance could be placed only on the noting in the station master’s memo…”
Justice Deshmukh concluded that as all the other documents on record sufficiently indicate the deceased was injured after falling from down the train and succumbed to the injuries, “the claimant (mother) has established the death occasioned due to an untoward incident…”
Mumbai: Observing that there was no evidence shown by Central Railway that a 35-year-old man fell off the roof of a local train in Oct 2012, Bombay High Court directed it to pay his mother compensation.
“Respondent-railway shall pay compensation of Rs 4 lakh to the appellant along with interest from the date of the accident, ie, October 16, 2012, or Rs 8 lakh, whichever is higher, within a period of 8 weeks…,” directed Justice Sharmila Deshmukh on March 12. In the event of failure to pay within the prescribed time, HC said CR must “pay 6% interest per annum from the due date till the entire amount is realised”.
HC quashed and set aside the Railway Claims Tribunal’s Aug 23, 2021, verdict denying Geeta Devi Thakur’s claim on the ground that the death of her son, Anil Thakur, was not an untoward incident defined under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act.
Around 10:25 am, Anil fell from the train between Ulhasnagar and Ambarnath stations. The tribunal accepted Anil was a bona fide passenger. However, it relied on the station master’s memo that a guard informed that he fell while travelling on the train’s roof.
Agreeing with the mother’s advocate, Balasaheb Deshmukh, Justice Deshmukh said the inquest panchnama and the police report make it clear that Anil was found injured on the railway tracks after falling from the train.
CR produced no record that Anil fell while travelling on the train’s roof. “The records, which are official records, would make it evident that the injury was caused due to falling down from the train…,” she said.
Justice Deshmukh noted that CR’s “solitary defence” based on the station master’s memo about information given by the guard has not been proved.
“As the guard was easily available for the purpose of examination, the respondent-railway ought to have examined him in order to establish their defence, which has not been done in the present case,” she said. Further, in the absence of any evidence led by CR, “no reliance could be placed only on the noting in the station master’s memo…”
Justice Deshmukh concluded that as all the other documents on record sufficiently indicate the deceased was injured after falling from down the train and succumbed to the injuries, “the claimant (mother) has established the death occasioned due to an untoward incident…”