44 years on, mother gets ₹61k compensation for son’s death

The Bombay High Court has ordered the Central Railways to pay compensation to the mother of a man who died in a railway accident 44 years ago due to negligence. The court upheld a previous judgment holding the railway officials liable for his death.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court asked the Central Railways (CR) to pay ₹61,075 as compensation to the mother of a 24-year-old man who died in a railway accident 44 years ago in Nashik district due to negligence.

HT Image

The high court recently dismissed an appeal filed by the CR challenging the March 1993 judgment of a civil court in Nashik holding the railway officials liable for his death.

On January 24, 1979, Mehboob, who works as a cleaner, along with driver Mohammed Saudagar, were on their way to a sugar factory with a truck loaded with sugarcane. The incident occurred between Nashik Road and Odha railway crossing. The crossing was open for vehicular traffic, and as the truck entered the railway line, an engine came and crushed the truck. Saudagar died at the spot, and Mehboob sustained severe injuries and eventually passed away two years later.

In 1988, his mother, Umraobi Sayed Munir, filed a civil suit before a joint civil judge, senior division, in Nashik, seeking compensation from the railways, claiming that the crossing gate was open to traffic and the officials did not warn the passing vehicles about the speeding engine which hit their truck, and the railways are liable to compensate her.

On March 31, 1993, the joint civil judge accepted her contentions and held the railways liable to compensate the woman, as the death of her young son – the sole breadwinner for the family – was caused due to negligence from the railway officials.

A single judge bench of justice PK Chavan, while upholding the trial court verdict, said that from the evidence on record, it is clear that the gateman at the crossing used to open the gate for traffic only after ascertaining from the officials that no train was coming towards the crossing but the gateman was unaware of the engine and had not received any indication of it passing through the crossing.

“It is an act of negligence on the part of the employees of the appellants (railways) as it appears from the evidence that there was no proper communication between the switchman and the gateman,” said justice Chavan while upholding the trial court verdict.

The bench also noticed from the deposition of the gateman recorded before the trial court that the gate was open for around four minutes before the truck entered the crossing.

“Had there been proper communication, there would have been an advance intimation to the gateman about the passing of the engine. There is no explanation from the appellants as to how the engine suddenly came when the gateman was unaware of it,” Chavan added.