Circumstantial Evidence Sufficient To Prove “Untoward Incident” Under Railways Act: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court held that circumstantial evidence can be relied upon to determine whether an “untoward incident” occurred under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, especially since the Act is a beneficial legislation intended to provide compensation to victims and their families. The Court observed that non-reporting of the incident to railway authorities at the earliest...
The Bombay High Court held that circumstantial evidence can be relied upon to determine whether an “untoward incident” occurred under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, especially since the Act is a beneficial legislation intended to provide compensation to victims and their families. The Court observed that non-reporting of the incident to railway authorities at the earliest point cannot by itself defeat a genuine claim when consistent circumstantial evidence establishes the occurrence of the incident.
Justice Jitendra Jain was hearing an appeal filed by the parents of a 17-year-old boy whose claim for compensation was rejected by the Railway Claims Tribunal on the grounds that there was no station record of the incident and that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger. The Court noted that the boy was travelling with friends on 5 September 2008 from Jogeshwari to Lower Parel for Ganesh Darshan, when he fell from a crowded local train between Elphinstone and Lower Parel stations. His friends, being young and frightened, rushed him directly to KEM Hospital instead of reporting the incident to railway officials, where he was declared dead on arrival. The first contemporaneous record of the incident appeared in the inquest panchnama and in statements made before police at KEM Hospital, followed by entries in GRP and RPF investigation reports.
The Court held that these materials constituted credible circumstantial evidence proving the occurrence of the fall. It noted that the postmortem report confirmed head injuries consistent with a fall from a moving train and that statements of the deceased's friends, recorded immediately after the incident, carried probative value. It observed:
“The circumstantial documentary evidence and the examination and the evidence led by the appellants, show that the incident had happened… looking at the overall circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no “untoward incident”, which resulted in the death of the deceased on account of fall from a moving train… 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”.”
The Court emphasised that in beneficial legislation, rigid technicalities should not be used to defeat genuine claims, and that even in criminal cases, circumstantial evidence is recognised. It further referred to the principle underlying dying declarations, observing that statements made at the first available opportunity after an incident should be given due weight.
“… the present legislation being a beneficial legislation, certainly, circumstantial evidence can be considered for deciding whether an “untoward incident” occurred or not, more so when there is no indication that the present application is fraud,” the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the order dated 29 January 2016 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal and held that the appellants were entitled to compensation of ₹4,00,000 with 6% interest from the date of the accident, subject to the statutory cap of ₹8,00,000. The appeal was allowed.
Case Title: Dhondu Sakharam Tambe & Anr. v. Union of India [FIRST APPEAL NO. 1668 OF 2016]