The Bombay High Court has brought closure to a family's 17-year-long legal battle after the tragic death of their 16-year-old son in a train accident - in a reminder that justice, though slow, can still prevail.
On June 20, 2009, Arogyaraj Chettiar - who worked as a menial labourer - was travelling in a crowded local train from Goregaon railway station to Churchgate railway station in Mumbai with a friend in search of a job. At around 2:13 pm, he fell from the moving train near Jogeshwari railway station. He was immediately rushed to the hospital, where he died the same night.
Shortly after the incident, Chettiar's parents, Rayappa and Victoria Chettiar, filed a compensation claim with the Railway Claims Tribunal, which was rejected in 2016. The railway argued that the teenager had been injured while crossing the tracks. A petition was then filed on behalf of the family, saying that Chettiar had a valid train ticket from Goregaon to Churchgate, proving him a "bona fide passenger." Furthermore, his friend testified that he fell from the fast local train near Jogeshwari due to overcrowding.
A single bench of Justice Jitendra Jain, while hearing the case this week, firmly held that the death was an "accidental fall from a moving train" and rejected Western Railway's claim that the boy was crossing the tracks. It said that "such a conclusion cannot be drawn based on this alone".
The court also awarded a maximum compensation of Rs 8 lakhs to the Chettiar family - which must be paid within 12 weeks.
The High Court stated that the Tribunal committed a "serious error" by ignoring this crucial evidence.
"The decision on the 2009 incident is still pending in 2026, and the Tribunal did not consider crucial evidence. Therefore, to avoid delay, this court is examining this evidence itself," it said.
Technical arguments questioned
The court disregarded the Jogeshwari station map presented by the railway, saying that this map was based on the current structure, despite the fact that the station had undergone several changes since 2009.
Furthermore, the railway's claim that the body was found on the fast track while the train was on the slow line was also questioned. The court clarified that platforms 2 and 3 are combined, and in such a situation, it cannot be concluded that the boy was crossing the tracks.
It also disagreed with the tribunal's comments regarding the injuries, stating that it is not a medical expert to draw conclusions based on the injuries.
