Trespassers Must Accept Responsibility For Risk In Crossing Railway Tracks, Railways Not Accountable: Orissa HC Dismisses Writ For Compensation
The Orrisa High Court single bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi dismissed a writ petition seeking compensation from Railways in two separate incidents resulting in fatalities on railway tracks. The bench held that the deceased individuals were not passengers but trespassers who were struck by a train while on the tracks.The High Court held that trespassing on railway tracks...
The Orrisa High Court single bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi dismissed a writ petition seeking compensation from Railways in two separate incidents resulting in fatalities on railway tracks. The bench held that the deceased individuals were not passengers but trespassers who were struck by a train while on the tracks.
The High Court held that trespassing on railway tracks is inherently risky, as it exposes individuals to the potential dangers associated with trains and the railway environment. Those who choose to unlawfully cross tracks must accept the responsibility for the risks involved and cannot hold the railways accountable for the consequences of their actions.
It held that the Railways plays a fundamental role as the backbone of the nation's transportation infrastructure, connecting vast areas and facilitating economic activities and the movement of millions of passengers and freight. It is undeniably the lifeline of the nation, serving as a vital link in the country's socio-economic fabric.
However, alongside its crucial function, it noted that the Railways faces a significant challenge – the occurrence of rail accidents. In 2021 alone, there were 1,752 rail-related deaths, with the majority resulting from illegal track crossings. Despite stringent safety measures and ongoing efforts to improve infrastructure and operational protocols, it noted that these accidents persist, posing risks to passengers and railway staff.
The High Court held that these incidents not only result in tragic loss of life but also lead to economic losses and disruptions to railway operations. Addressing the root causes of rail accidents in India requires a comprehensive approach, including infrastructure modernization, technology integration, robust maintenance practices, strict safety regulations, and collaboration among stakeholders. By prioritizing these initiatives and fostering a culture of safety and accountability, the High Court held that the Railways can work towards reducing accidents and ensuring the continued safety and reliability of this vital national asset.
Brief Facts:
The matter pertained to two separate incidents resulting in fatalities at railway stations. In the first incident, Biswanath Pradhan, the Station Master at Jujumura Railway Station, reported the discovery of a deceased individual on railway track No.43/7 near Andhari village. The deceased, identified as Bhakta Pradhan, was mentally challenged and fatally struck by a passing train. Similarly, in the second incident, the Petitioner's son was struck by a goods train at Soro railway station, leading to his demise due to sustained injuries. The Petitioners approached the Orrisa High Court (“High Court”) and filed a writ petition direct the Railway Authorities to pay compensation against the unnatural death of the kin.
The Petitioners argued that compensation is warranted under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, as the deaths resulted from negligence on the part of the railway administration. They emphasized the principle of "Ubi jus ibi remedium," arguing that where there is a right, there must be a remedy. They contended that the deaths were not natural but the result of negligence by the railway authorities, which necessities compensation for the dependents left behind.
In contrast, the State argued that both incidents involved trespassing onto railway tracks, which constituted violations of Section 147 of the Railway Act, 1989. It claimed that the deceased unlawfully entered railway property, making their actions criminal offenses. In the second case, it argued that the deceased's deliberate positioning on the railway track may even be construed as an act of suicide or attempted suicide.
Observations by the High Court:
The High Court referred to the provisions of Section 124A of the Railway Act, 1989. This section mandates compensation in the event of an untoward incident on a railway, regardless of whether there was any wrongful act or negligence on the part of the railway administration. However, it explicitly defines a "passenger" eligible for compensation, which excludes individuals who are trespassing on railway tracks. The High Court held that the deceased individuals were not passengers but trespassers who were struck by a train while on the tracks. Therefore, it held that they do not fall under the purview of Section 124A.
While railways have a responsibility to ensure public safety, including preventing foreseeable harm to trespassers, the High Court held that the extent of this duty may vary from that owed to authorized users. It held that railway operators commonly employ safety measures such as fencing and warning signs to deter trespassing and mitigate accidents. However, liability arises only if it can be demonstrated that the railway failed to take reasonable precautions. It held that Section 13 of the Indian Railway Act, 1890, outlines specific requirements for safety measures, but their implementation depends on various factors such as the location and traffic volume.
In assessing negligence, the High Court referred to the principle of res ipsa loquitur. This principle establishes a prima facie case of negligence if the accident is of a kind that typically does not occur without negligence, the agency causing the accident is under the defendant's exclusive control, and the plaintiff did not contribute to the accident voluntarily. However, the High Court held that in both the incidents these criteria were not met. It held that the deceased individuals were trespassing, and their actions contributed to the accidents by entering railway tracks despite warnings or available alternatives like Foot Over Bridges.
The High Court referred to the Delhi High Court decision in Klaus Mittelbachert v. East India Hotels Ltd. [1997 SCC OnLine Del 22] and emphasized that negligence must be established based on reasonable evidence. Similarly, in Mohd. Quamuddin & Ors. vs Union Of India [2015 SCC OnLine Del 10229], the Delhi High Court clarified that the obligation to fence railway tracks depends on the likelihood of trespassing and the presence of designated crossings. The absence of fencing does not necessarily constitute negligence.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ms. D. Mohapatra, Adv. Mr. Amit Pr. Bose, Adv. Mr. S. Sourav, Adv. Mr. S. K. Nanda, Adv. Mr. G. C. Swain, Adv. Mr. G. P. Dutta, Adv. Mr. D. Mund, Adv. Mr. A. S. Nandy, Adv. Mr. S.K. Pradhan-3, Adv. Mr. Santosh Ku. Nanda, Adv. Mr. S.B. Mohanty, Adv.
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. P. K. Parhi, DSGI Mr. A. Routray, CGC Mr. B. S. Rayaguru, CGC Mr. D. Gocchayat, CGC Mr. M. K. Pati, CGC
Case Title: Hema Pradhan & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.12405 of 2015