Railways Failure To Halt Overcrowding By Ticketless Persons Is Contributory Negligence, Liable For Genuine Passenger's Death: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the Railway's failure to prevent ticketless and unauthorised persons from boarding a train amounts to contributory negligence, rendering it liable to compensate the dependents of a bona fide passenger who died due to overcrowding. The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed; "The Railways is obligated under Sections 123(c) and 124A of the Railways...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the Railway's failure to prevent ticketless and unauthorised persons from boarding a train amounts to contributory negligence, rendering it liable to compensate the dependents of a bona fide passenger who died due to overcrowding.
The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed;
"The Railways is obligated under Sections 123(c) and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, to ensure the safety of passengers and to compensate for untoward incidents including accidental deaths, where negligence or breach of statutory duty is established. The failure of railway authorities to monitor and control the boarding of ticketless passengers constitutes a serious lapse in their duty of care and vigilance, thereby endangering the life and safety of lawful passengers. The sanctity of a ticketed journey must be upheld by strict enforcement of access controls and regular monitoring. Any omission in this regard cannot be condoned, especially when it results in loss of innocent life. It is, therefore, held that such failure amounts to contributory negligence on the part of the Railways Administration".
The deceased, Gurmeet Singh, was travelling from Bhilai Power House Station to Durg with a valid railway pass. Due to excessive rushing and pushing by other passengers, he unfortunately fell from the moving train and died from the injuries.
However, the Railways Claims Tribunal rejected the family's claim for compensation on April 26, 2011, holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, as no valid ticket was recovered from his possession.
Counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal erred by disregarding the statements of co-passengers and the deceased's valid identity card associated with a Railway pass.
Counsel for the Railway, on the other hand, argued that the absence of a valid ticket suggests possible forgery to get false compensation and therefore was liable to be dismissed.
The court noted that the Tribunal's decision primarily rested on the non-production of a valid travel ticket. Citing the case of Rina Devi, the court reaffirmed that the mere absence of a ticket does not negate the claim of bona fide passenger status.
The court further observed that the deceased had been carrying a valid season ticket and submitted a corresponding identity card, which was valid on the date of the accident. As such, the burden shifted to the Railways to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
Additionally, the court highlighted the failure of the Railways to restrain ticketless passengers from boarding the train. It emphasized that the Railways are duty-bound to ensure only valid ticket holders are on board and to prevent unauthorized passengers from boarding.
The court also emphasized the broader responsibility of Railway functionaries to ensure passenger safety. It held that the Railways would be liable to compensate if a person is injured or killed due to their failure to ensure that only valid ticket holders are allowed to board. However, the court clarified that it would be necessary to examine whether the deceased or injured person was not travelling without authorization or with malicious intent.
"The Railways being a public utility service and an instrumentality of the State, owe a statutory and constitutional duty to ensure the safety and security of passengers travelling on its network. This duty extends not only to operational efficiency but also to the effective implementation of regulatory measures, including preventing unauthorized and ticketless travel", the court emphasized.
The court observed that the tragic incident resulting in the deceased's death was a direct consequence of overcrowding, which may have been caused by unauthorized travellers who were allowed to board and remain in the compartment unchecked.
Thus, the court concluded that the failure of the Railway authorities to ensure passenger safety amounted to contributory negligence on the part of the administration, making the family of the deceased entitled to compensation.
In light of this, the court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed that compensation of ₹8 Lakh be paid to the family within eight weeks.
Case Title: Vijay Singh Gour v Union [MA-3232-2011]
For Appellant: Advocate Ratnakar Prasad Mishra
For Respondent: Advocate Satyendra Kumar Patel