Circumstantial Evidence Can Be Considered For Deciding Whether Untoward Incident Occurred Under Railways Act: Bombay High Court

The appeal before the Bombay High Court was filed challenging an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal whereby the application made by the appellants/ applicants seeking compensation from the respondent on account of death of their son was dismissed on the ground that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and there was no record of “untoward incident” having occurred as per the records of the officials.

The Single Bench of Justice Jitendra Jain stated, “It is important to note that the Railways Act, 1989 is a beneficial legislation. Even in criminal matters, circumstantial evidence is taken into consideration for deciding whether the offence was committed or not. If that be so, then the present legislation being a beneficial legislation, certainly circumstantial evidence can be considered for deciding whether an “untoward incident” occurred or not, moreso when there is no indication that the present application is fraud.”

Advocate Balasaheb Deshmukh represented the Appellant while Advocate T. J. Pandian represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The deceased was a 17 year old boy who while travelling by local train for visiting Lalbaug during Ganesh Festival, fell down due to rush in the train. His friends alighted at Lower Parel Station and instead of informing the station officials about the incident, rushed to the accident spot and took the deceased to the Hospital for treatment. But before he could be treated, he was declared dead on arrival by the doctors.

Reasoning

The Bench first dealt with the issue of non-reporting of the incident by the friends of the deceased to the nearest railway station officials. The Bench considered the fact that the deceased and his friends were in the age group of 17-18 years and could have been frightened by the fact that the boy fell from the train. Thus, instead of informing the station officials, they took him to the hospital, because the first priority in such cases is to save the injured person.

As per the postmortem report, the cause of death was stated as head injury, which, according to the Bench, was most likely to happen when a person falls from a train and, more particularly, from a moving train. The postmortem report was prepared by K.E.M. hospital, which was the hospital where the deceased was taken by his friends. “However, the circumstantial evidences which are referred above clearly indicates that the incident had happened and at the first available instance, same was narrated to various authorities at the hospital, and same has been noted in the letters and reports of these authorities”, it added.

The Bench was of the view that it could not be said that there was no “untoward incident”, which resulted in the death of the deceased on account of a fall from a moving train. “It is also important to note that while adjudicating the criminal matters, dying declaration plays a very important role since, it is based on a principle that a person at the last stage of his life would always speak the truth. Similarly, in the present circumstances when the accident happened, the statements made at the first available instance before the state authorities should be accepted as an important piece of evidence for adjudicating the occurrence of an “untoward incident”, it held.

Noting that the loss to parents on death of young son is unimaginable and cannot be arrived at in monetary terms, the Bench asserted, “...when such a tragic and untoward incident happens when son is on his way to take darshan of Lord Ganesha, normally parents would not take opportunity of such incident to make a claim under the Railways Act, 1989 and litigate for decades for paltry sum. This factor too should be considered in absence of any suspicious circumstances to decide whether claim is genuine.”

Concluding that the condition of a bona fide passenger was also satisfied in the instant case, the Bench allowed the appeal and held the appellants entitled to the claim made in the original application of Rs 4 lakh along with 6% interest from the date of the accident till the date of payment. “However, if the aggregate amount is more than Rs.8 lakhs, then the appellants/applicants would be entitled to Rs.8 lakhs only”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Dhondu Sakharam Tambe v. The Union Of India (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:50279)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Balasaheb Deshmukh, Deepak T. Ajagekar

Respondent: Advocates T. J. Pandian, Gautam Modanwal, Noorjahan Khan

Click here to read/download Order