Railway Claims Tribunal Cannot Infer Death Due To Trespass Solely From Nature Of Injuries: Bombay High Court Allows Compensation

The Bombay High Court has held that the Railway Claims Tribunal is not an expert body competent to conclude that death occurred due to trespass merely on the basis of the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. The Court observed that in the absence of cogent evidence or expert testimony, such findings are unsustainable and cannot be used to deny compensation under the Railways Act.Justice Jitendra Jain was hearing a first appeal filed by the daughter of the deceased, challenging the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, which had rejected her claim for compensation on the ground that the incident did not qualify as an “untoward incident.” The deceased was travelling with a valid season pass when she died after allegedly falling from a train in the early morning hours. The Tribunal had accepted that the deceased was a bona fide passenger but rejected the claim by concluding, based on the nature of injuries and certain reports, that the deceased had been hit by a train while trespassing on the tracks. The High Court examined various contemporaneous documents, including the Station Master's report, the inquest panchnama, the police report, and the Divisional Railway Manager's report. It noted that the Station Master's report, which was the earliest record of the incident, did not specify any cause of death and recorded the reason as “not known.”The Court found that none of the documents on record conclusively established that the deceased was crossing the tracks or committing any unlawful act at the time of the incident.On the Tribunal's reasoning, the Court held that drawing conclusions solely from the nature of injuries, without examining any medical expert or eyewitness, was impermissible. It categorically observed that the Tribunal is not an expert body to infer the manner of death based only on injury patterns, particularly when no supporting evidence is led by the Railways.“The respondent-railways have not examined any witness, including a medical expert. The Tribunal is not an expert body for coming to a certain conclusion based on the nature of the injury. Therefore, the Tribunal's finding on this aspect cannot be sustained,” the Court observed.The Court further held that the exclusion under Section 147 read with Section 124A of the Railways Act was not attracted, as there was no evidence that the deceased had trespassed or unlawfully entered railway property.Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's findings on the issue of “untoward incident” and held that the death was caused by an accidental fall from a train while travelling as a bona fide passenger. The appeal was allowed, and the respondent Railways were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum.Case Title: Rajani Ravindra Pol v. Union of India [First Appeal No. 619 of 2018]Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 133Click Here To Read/Download Order

Railway Claims Tribunal Cannot Infer Death Due To Trespass Solely From Nature Of Injuries: Bombay High Court Allows Compensation

Saksham Vaishya

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Saksham Vaishya

Railway Claims Tribunal Cannot Infer Death Due To Trespass Solely From Nature Of Injuries: Bombay High Court Allows Compensation

Saksham Vaishya

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Saksham Vaishya

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers