Bombay High Court Directs Centre To Pay ₹8L Compensation To Sister Of Man Who Died After Falling From Unknown Running Train

The Bombay High Court has directed the Central Government to pay Rs. 8 lakhs as compensation to the sister of a man who died after falling from an unknown running train.

The Court was hearing an Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the Judgment and Award passed by the Member (Technical) of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench.

A Single Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar observed, “I am, therefore, inclined to hold that Sonam (A2), in her capacity as the legal representative of Mahadev (A1), the deceased appellant, is entitled to prosecute the appeal and receive compensation which would have been paid to Mahadev (A1) as it partakes the character of the estate of Mahadev (A1). However, Sonal (A2) would receive the said compensation for and on behalf of all the legal representatives of Mahadev (A1), in a representative capacity.”

Advocate Mohan Rao appeared on behalf of the Appellants while Advocate Suresh Kumar appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The deceased, then 25 years of age, was a bachelor. In 2011, he was travelling from Malad to Mahalaxmi Station by a local train on a valid second-class season ticket. Between Lower Parel and Mahalaxmi Station, the deceased accidentally fell off from an unknown running train and sustained fatal injuries. He succumbed to the injuries before he could be admitted in hospital. As the deceased was a bachelor, his father and sister preferred an Application for compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Respondent resisted the Application by filing a Written Statement.

Refuting the assertions of the Applicants that the deceased died on account of an untoward incident, it was contended that the Charge Report prepared at the Lower Parel Station indicated that an unknown male was found lying dead on the tracks between 7/05 and 7/06 km, but in the absence of evidence regarding the mode and manner of the alleged incident, it cannot be termed as an “untoward incident”. The Tribunal held that the Applicants failed to establish that the deceased died on account of an untoward incident. Being aggrieved by this decision, the Appellants filed an Appeal before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “Keeping in view the object of the provisions contained in Section 124 and 124-A of the Railways Act, and, more importantly, the nature of the liability of the railway administration, once the primary facts are established, this Court is persuaded to take a view that the distinction dependent upon the outcome of the proceeding before the Tribunal, pales in significance.”

The Court noted that if the claimant was of the class where he becomes dependent on account of the relationship, and was not required to further prove the actual dependency, and the primary facts to enforce the strict liability of the railway administration are established, then the right to receive compensation crystalizes as of the date of death of the deceased passenger and the fact that the Tribunal unjustifiably rejected the claim, does not defeat such crystalized or vested right in the event the dependent/claimant dies after preferring an Appeal.

“The case in hand falls in this category. … The conspectus of aforesaid consideration is that the appeal deserves to be allowed”, it added.

“The respondent do pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to Smt. Sonal Vaibhav Sawant (A2), in her capacity as the legal representative of Mahadev Krishna Tambe (A1), within a period of one month from today. In default, the amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. till payment or realization”, it directed.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal, quashed the impugned Judgment and Award, and granted compensation.

Cause Title- Mahadev Krishna Tambe (deleted as dead) v. The Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:24430)

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocate Mohan Rao

Respondent: Advocates Suresh Kumar and Smita Thakur.

Click here to read/download the Judgment