Railway Accident: 'Compensation Cannot Be Denied Without Proof Of Trespassing,' Says Bombay HC
· Free Press Journal
Mumbai, March 19: In the absence of proof or an eyewitness that a person was run over while crossing railway tracks, compensation cannot be denied by terming the death as trespassing, the Bombay High Court has held.
Visit asg-reflektory.pl for more information.
HC sets aside tribunal order
The court set aside a February 28, 2014 order of the Railway Claims Tribunal rejecting compensation to the family of Valentine D’Souza, who died in 2011, and directed the railways to pay Rs 4 lakh with interest.
Justice Jitendra Jain was hearing an appeal by D’Souza’s family.
Background of the case
According to the family, D’Souza, a Naigaon resident, was travelling to work at Dadar on March 18, 2011, when he fell from a train between Naigaon and Bhayander stations.
The tribunal had accepted that he was a “bonafide passenger”, noting that a first-class season ticket was recovered from him, and also recognised his dependents—his wife, minor daughter, and aged parents.
However, it denied compensation, holding that records indicated a runover case caused by trespassing and therefore not an “untoward incident”.
Court questions lack of evidence
The High Court framed the core issue as whether the case fell under an “untoward incident” or trespassing.
The family detailed D’Souza’s routine on the day of the accident, but there was no eyewitness to his boarding the train—either accompanied by a co-passenger or CCTV footage.
Justice Jain said such proof cannot always be expected. “In this case, none of the two exists. Therefore, to call upon the applicants to prove that the deceased was boarding the train would be imposing an impossible onerous burden,” the court observed, rejecting the railways’ contention.
No proof of trespassing, says court
The court also noted the absence of any eyewitness to show that D’Souza was crossing the tracks. “In the absence of any eyewitness, the contention of trespassing cannot be accepted,” Justice Jain added.
It further observed that the fatal injuries could have occurred after the fall, either under the same train or another approaching train. In such circumstances, and without evidence explaining the manner of death, the plea of trespassing could not be sustained.
Reports fail to establish cause
The Station Master’s and post-mortem reports recorded the cause of death as a railway accident, without clarifying whether it was due to trespassing or an untoward incident.
“If the deceased was hit by a moving train, then the motorman or the Guard would have informed the Station Master… This is not the fact in the present case,” the court emphasised.
Also Watch:
Bombay HC Sets Aside Pune Court’s Order Against Runwal Enterprises In Land DisputeCompensation ordered
The court directed payment of Rs 4 lakh with 6% annual interest from the date of the accident till payment, subject to a cap of Rs 8 lakh.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/