Bombay HC Grants ₹8 Lakh Compensation To Sister Of Youth Who Died After Falling Off Train

The Bombay High Court has set aside an 11-year-old order of the Railway Claims Tribunal denying compensation to the family of a 25-year-old man who died after allegedly falling off a local train, and directed the Railways to pay Rs8 lakh as compensation to the deceased’s sister.

Justice NJ Jamadar, on June 19, held that the incident amounted to an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act and that the youth was a bona fide passenger, holding a valid second-class season ticket at the time of his death.

The deceased, Amit Tambe, was travelling from Malad to Mahalaxmi on July 25, 2011, when he allegedly fell off the train between Lower Parel and Mahalaxmi stations. He died before he could be admitted to hospital. His father, Mahadev Krishna Tambe, and sister, Sonal Vaibhav Sawant, had filed a compensation claim before the Tribunal.

In 2014, the Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding that the applicants had failed to prove that the death occurred due to an untoward incident. It observed that the body was found on a track used by fast trains, while Mahalaxmi is a halt for slow trains, and that the deceased could not have fallen from a train passing through that line.

However, the high court held that this reasoning was speculative. “This absence of pleading and evidence gives heft to the submission on behalf of the appellant that the learned Member of the Tribunal invented the defence and returned the finding sans evidence,” the court said.

It noted that the season ticket and ID card were recovered from the deceased, which “seals the issue".

The court also relied on the inquest panchnama which stated that the deceased had likely fallen from a local train and sustained grievous injuries to the head and face. “The injuries… appear more compatible with the case that the deceased fell off the train carrying the passengers,” the court added.

The father Mahadev passed away during the pendency of the appeal. The Railways argued that Sonal, being a married sister, was not a dependent under the Act.

Rejecting this, the court held that since Mahadev was a dependent, his legal heirs were entitled to continue the claim. 

The court directed the Railways to pay Rs8  lakh to Sonal within a month, failing which it would attract 9% interest per annum.