Calcutta High Court Dismisses Eastern Railway’s Appeal, Upholds ₹3.56 Lakh Compensation To Family Of Railway Contractor's Worker Killed After Being Hit By Train At Worksite
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Calcutta, Single Bench of Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury has dismissed a railway authority’s appeal and affirmed a compensation award to the dependants of a contract worker who died in a workplace accident. The Court upheld the direction to pay compensation with interest for the death of a workman who was struck by a train while working on railway tracks and found no basis to interfere with the Commissioner’s assessment. It further directed deposit of the awarded amount within eight weeks and allowed the claimant to withdraw sums deposited, subject to formalities.
The dispute stemmed from a workplace accident on December 23, 2006, when a contract-engaged worker was run over by the 2509 Up Bangalore–Guwahati Express near Noadbradhal Railway Station and died at the site. His widow lodged a dependency claim under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.
Also Read: High Court Cannot Reject Plaint Under Article 227 When Order 7 Rule 11 Remedy Exists: Supreme Court
The Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation, West Bengal awarded ₹3,56,980 with interest at 12% per annum from one month after the incident and directed deposit within 60 days. The railway administration appealed, contending it was not the worker’s employer, disputing the asserted monthly wages, and arguing that no statutory notice of the accident had been served, making any finding of its knowledge unsustainable.
The Court recorded, “Upon perusal of the record it appears that the appellant Railway Authority did not adduce any evidence before the Learned Commissioner.” On the issue of notice, the Court observed, “Thus the plea that the Railway Authority did not have notice about accident cannot be sustained.”
Regarding the employer’s identity, the Court stated, “Hence the name of the contractor under whom the victim was working is also stated in the report.” It further recorded, “Hence the plea of the Learned Advocate for the appellant that the respondent could not furnish proof of the employer of the victim cannot be sustained.”
On age determination, the Court observed, “Now with regard to the age of victim as the post mortem report mentions age of the victim to be 42 years Learned Commissioner rightly proceeded on the basis that age of victim was 42 years.”
On income, it stated, “Although the respondent/claimant could not furnish any document to prove income of the victim but considering the nature of work it is not unusual that victim used to earn Rs. 4,000/- per month. Thus the Learned Commissioner rightly proceeded on the basis of notional income.”
The Court further observed, “As Court of Commissioner is not a Civil Court but a Tribunal thus strict Rules of evidence are not applicable.” It recorded, “As Employees Compensation Act is beneficial legislation it is to be seen that the welfare object of the statute is fulfilled.”
The Court also stated, “As the family members of a worker who died in accident may not be able to submit all documents for the purpose of claim, the Commissioner upon considering oral evidence, enquiry report of Police Authority may award compensation.” It further observed, “The contribution of the Tribunals should be to ensure that the benefits reach the helpless person.”
The Court directed, “In the facts and circumstances this Appeal being FMA 1588 of 2025 fails and the same is dismissed. The Order passed by the Learned Trial Judge is affirmed. Trial Court Records be sent back. The Awarded Amount along with interest as directed by Learned Trial Court be deposited by Appellant within 8 weeks from the date of communication of the Order.”
It further directed, “In the event any sum is already deposited the balance amount be deposited. The Respondent Ajmira Mirja is permitted to withdraw the awarded sum deposited including accrued interest if any on compliance of the required formalities.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Suman Chattopadhyay, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sudeep Sanyal, Advocate; Mr. Snehasis Jana, Advocate; Ms. Anulekha Bera Maiti, Advocate; Ms. Tutun Das, Advocate
Case Title: General Manager, Eastern Railway Vs Ajmira Mirja
Case Number: F.M.A. 2786 of 2016
Bench: Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury
