17 years on, HC awards ₹8 lakh for teen’s fall from local train

A single-judge bench of Justice Jitendra Jain directed the boy’s parents to file a fresh claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal

MUMBAI: Nearly 17 years after a 16-year-old boy died after falling from a crowded suburban train at Jogeshwari station, the Bombay High Court on Monday granted compensation up to ₹8 lakh to his parents, holding that the death resulted from an “accidental fall from a moving train” and not while crossing railway tracks, as claimed by Western Railway.

The high court directed the boy’s parents to file a fresh claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal. (Bhushan Koyande/HT Photo)

A single-judge bench of Justice Jitendra Jain directed the boy’s parents to file a fresh claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal. It also directed Western Railway to deposit ₹4 lakh with 6% annual interest from the date of the accident in 2009, and ordered that the total compensation be capped at ₹8 lakh, payable within 12 weeks.

The deceased, Arogyaraj Chetiyar, who did odd jobs for a living, was travelling from Goregaon to Churchgate in a crowded local train with a friend in search of work on June 20, 2009, according to his parents’ lawyer, Vaneet Khosla. At around 2.13 pm, he fell from the train near Jogeshwari station and was taken to hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries later that night.

Arogyaraj’s parents, Rayappa and Victorya Chetiyar, had filed a compensation claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, which was rejected in 2016 after the railways contended that he died while crossing the tracks.

The Chetiyars then approached the high court in 2017, challenging the tribunal’s order. According to their petition, a valid train ticket to travel from Goregaon to Churchgate was found on Arogyaraj, making him a bona fide passenger. They also relied on the testimony of his friend, who told the tribunal that Arogyaraj fell from a fast local near Jogeshwari due to excessive rush.

The high court ruled in the Chetiyars’ favour, saying the tribunal “gravely erred in not considering crucial evidence” of Arogyaraj’s friend. “...in this case, the accident is of the year 2009, and we are in the year 2026, and the tribunal has not considered crucial evidence. Therefore, to avoid any further delay, this court itself is examining the crucial evidence,” it said.

The court rejected the railways’ contention that the presence of nearby slums indicated that the deceased may have been crossing the tracks. “Merely because the spot is common for people to cross the railway tracks, it would not mean that at the time of the accident, the deceased was crossing the track,” justice Jain said.

On the tribunal’s observation that Arogyaraj’s neck was cut, which was contrary to the post-mortem report, the court said, “The tribunal is not a medical expert for rendering findings based on the nature of injuries that such injuries could have been inflicted only when a person is crossing the track…”

The court also found little value in the railways’ reliance on a map of the Jogeshwari railway station, saying it “only indicates the spot of the incident”. The map “is based on stations existing today and not when the incident happened, and there have been many changes from 2009 to 2026 at the Jogeshwari railway station…,” justice Jain said.

Addressing the railways’ claim that the body was found on a fast track while the train was on a slow line, the court noted that the written statement of the railways said that the body was found near platform No 3. “Jogeshwari platform numbers 2 and 3 are joint. The slow train runs on platform No 2, and the track adjoining platform No 3 is a fast track. And if the deceased fell near platform No 3, it cannot be concluded that he died because of crossing the tracks,” the court said.

The court further noted that railway records described the train involved as an “unknown train”. Justice Jain observed, “ The movements of the trains are regulated minutely, and the body was found near platform No 3. Therefore, there is no reason why the train number could not be given.”