SHYAMAL SACHIN SALVI v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER
Accidental Fall vs. Trespassing - High Court Reverses Tribunal Order, Holding that Claims Cannot be Rejected Based on Injury Nature Without Expert Evidence or Eyewitness Testimony.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:13217
Decision Date: 17-03-2026
List of Laws
The Railways Act, 1989; Section 124A (Compensation for untoward incidents); Section 147 (Trespassing and refusal to desist from trespass); Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987
- Facts: The appellant’s mother, a housemaid, died on 28th December, 2010, while travelling from Nallasopara to Santacruz with a valid season ticket. The appellant claimed the deceased died due to a fall from the train. However, the Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the claim, concluding that the nature of the injuries suggested the deceased was knocked down while trespassing or crossing the tracks, which would not constitute an "untoward incident" under the law. While the Tribunal accepted that the deceased was a "bonafide passenger", it denied compensation based on the cause of death.
- Procedural Posture: The appellant challenged the order dated 31st January, 2018, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under a First Appeal.
- Issue: Whether the death of the deceased constituted an "untoward incident" due to an accidental fall from the train, or whether it was a result of the deceased's "own criminal act" of trespassing and crossing the tracks, thereby excluding the Railways from liability under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
- Holding: Yes, the incident constitutes an "untoward incident". the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, holding that the deceased died due to an accidental fall from the train and is entitled to compensation.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Tribunal’s finding of "trespassing" was based on conjectures rather than evidence. The original Station Master’s report stated the reason for death was "not known" and did not mention trespassing. Subsequent reports by the police and the Divisional Railway Manager, which alleged track crossing, were found to be incorrectly based on the initial memo which contained no such details. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Tribunal is not a medical expert body and cannot determine the cause of death solely based on the nature of injuries without expert testimony or eyewitnesses. Since there was no evidence of a "criminal act" or unauthorized entry under Section 147, the exclusion under Section 124A(c) did not apply.
🔒 For Members Only