In a quietly tense courtroom on Thursday, the Bombay High Court overturned a decade-old tribunal ruling and granted compensation to a Mumbai couple whose 17-year-old son died after falling from a crowded local train during the 2008 Ganesh festival rush. Hearing the matter, Justice Jitendra Jain took a sympathetic view of the family’s long struggle, noting that “the law cannot shut its eyes to what is obvious from surrounding circumstances.”
Background
The case dates back to September 2008, when Jaideep Tambe, a Class XII student from Jogeshwari, set out with friends to visit the Lalbaug cha Raja shrine. Somewhere between Elphinstone Road and Lower Parel stations, he fell from a packed local train and was rushed by his teenage friends to KEM Hospital. Doctors declared him dead on arrival.
Read also: Assam High Court Flags Gaps in Police Recruitment Policy for Transgender Applicants, Seeks Clarity
But when his parents sought statutory compensation under the Railways Act, the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed their application in 2016, concluding that Jaideep was not a “bonafide passenger” and that “no untoward incident” was reported in official railway records. The family appealed, insisting their son had a valid ticket and that the non-reporting was simply an act of panic by frightened minors.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, Justice Jain repeatedly questioned the Tribunal’s narrow interpretation of evidence. He pointed out that the inquest panchnama, hospital records, police statements and investigation notes all consistently indicated a fall from the train.
Read also: Supreme Court Flags Serious Concerns Over Police Conduct in Madhya Pradesh Case, Seeks Affidavits
“The bench observed, ‘When boys aged seventeen or eighteen see their friend fall from a moving train, their instinct is to save him-not to run to a Station Master’s cabin.’”
The Court emphasised that the first statements recorded at KEM Hospital, particularly from Jaideep’s friend Vivek Tukral, were made within hours of the incident and deserved significant weight. These statements described how each friend, including Jaideep, had purchased a ticket for their journey.
Justice Jain noted, almost conversationally at one point, that asking the family to produce a physical train ticket after six years-especially when it was never challenged properly during cross-examination-was “completely unrealistic.”
Read also: Supreme Court Clarifies Key Rules on Cheque Dishonour Jurisdiction After 2015 NI Act
He also reminded the parties that the Railways Act is a “beneficial legislation,” designed to help victims, not trap them in procedural loopholes. The judge drew parallels with criminal law, where even circumstantial evidence and dying declarations play crucial roles when direct evidence is unavailable.
A telling comment came when the Court acknowledged the emotional reality: “Loss to parents on death of a young son is unimaginable… and parents do not litigate for decades for a paltry sum unless the claim is genuine.”
The Court also cited supporting precedents from the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Karnataka High Court, where evidence from accompanying friends was accepted to establish ticket purchase and accident circumstances.
Read also: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Husband in Dowry Death Case, Flags Investigation Lapses and Ignored
Court’s Decision
Setting aside the Tribunal’s 2016 order, the High Court held that the boy was a bonafide passenger and that the fall was indeed an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act. The parents were awarded ₹4 lakh compensation with 6% interest from the date of the accident, subject to the statutory cap of ₹8 lakh. The Railway administration has been directed to transfer the amount within eight weeks of receiving the family’s bank details along with a copy of the order.
Case Title: Dhondu Sakharam Tambe & Anr. vs. Union of India
Case No.: First Appeal No. 1668 of 2016
Case Type: Civil Appeal (Railway Accident Compensation)
Decision Date: 21 November 2025
