Bombay High Court · 2026-05-04
SHRI. RAYAPPA JAYASEELAN ANTONY CHETIYAR AND ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, WESTERN RAILWAY
- Citation / case number
- FA/448/2017
- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Petitioner
- SHRI. RAYAPPA JAYASEELAN ANTONY CHETIYAR AND ANR.
- Respondent
- UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, WESTERN RAILWAY
Judgment text excerpt
ppn 1 53.fa-448.17.doc Digitally signed IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY by PRACHI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PRACHI PRANESH PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR NANDIWADEKAR Date: 2026.05.04 FIRST APPEAL NO.448 OF 2017 15:53:55 +0530 1. Rayappa Jayaseelan Antony Chetiyar ) Aged 46 years (father) ) 2. Smt. Victorya Rayappa Jayaseelan Chetiyar ) Aged 41 years (mother) ) residing at -Vivekanand Nagar, ) Behind St John School, ) S. V. Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai – 104. ) ...Appellants (Orig. Applicants) V/s. Union of India through the General Manager, ) Western Railway, ) Having his office at G. M. Building, ) Churchgate. ) .…Respondent ---- Mr. Vaneet Khosla for the appellants/orig.applicants. Mr. Chetan C. Agrawal for the respondent. ---- CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J. DATED : 4th May 2026 Judgment :- 1. This appeal is filed by the original applicants, who are dependents of the deceased Mr. Arogyaraj Chetiyar, to challenge an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai (‘Tribunal’), whereby the original application came to be rejected on the ground that Mr. Arogyaraj Chetiyar did not die on account of an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989. 2. I have heard Mr. Khosla, learned counsel for the original applicants and Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the Railways. 3. On 20 June 2009, the deceased met with an accident near Jogeshwari Railway Station at around 14:13 hrs. He was admitted to ppn 2 53.fa-448.17.doc Cooper Hospital at around 14:50 hrs. and, thereafter, moved to K.E.M. Hospital. 4. The deceased expired on the same day at 22:00 hrs. while undergoing treatment at the hospital. The postmortem was carried out at K.E.M. Hospital. 5. The Applicants, thereafter, made an application to the Tribunal for compensation under the Rai