The Bombay High Court has ordered Central Railway to pay Rs 8,14,641 in compensation to the parents of a young man who died after falling from a moving Mumbai local train, ruling that a railway departmental report alone could not establish that he had been killed while crossing the tracks.
Justice Aarti Sathe’s single-judge bench set aside a 2019 order of the Railway Claims Tribunal that had rejected the parents’ compensation claim. The court directed that the amount be divided equally between the deceased man’s mother and father.
The case concerned the circumstances of the man’s death. Central Railway had relied on the report of the Divisional Railway Manager of its Mumbai division and a station master’s memo to support the conclusion that the man had died after being hit while crossing the railway tracks. However, the railway did not produce an eyewitness or other conclusive evidence proving that he had been crossing the tracks when the incident occurred.
The High Court noted that the panchnama prepared at the site stated that the man had fallen from a moving local train. It also recorded that he was carrying a valid travel ticket. These details were not adequately considered by the Railway Claims Tribunal, the court observed while examining the parents’ petition.
The ruling clarified that railway records can be considered as evidence, but they cannot automatically be treated as final or decisive proof. Their reliability and consistency with other evidence must be assessed by the adjudicating authority, the court said. In this case, the tribunal had relied on the departmental report and station master’s memo while overlooking the findings in the panchnama.
The High Court also criticised what it described as a narrow interpretation of the railway law that had deprived the deceased man’s family of compensation. The court emphasised the welfare-oriented character of the legislation while directing Central Railway to make the payment within eight weeks.
The order also specifies that if the compensation is not deposited within that period, the amount will carry interest at an annual rate of 9 per cent. The decision places the evidentiary responsibility in such claims beyond internal railway records and requires tribunals to examine those records alongside site documentation and other available material.
For families seeking compensation after deaths or injuries involving suburban rail services, the ruling establishes that an internal railway account cannot, by itself, determine whether a passenger was trespassing on the tracks or travelling on a train. The immediate next step is Central Railway’s deposit of the ordered amount within eight weeks, failing which the prescribed interest will apply.
