Passenger Hit By Train While Crossing Railway Track In Absence Of Foot-Over Bridge Entitled To Compensation: Jharkhand High Court

Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava held, “...in the instant case deceased was a bonafide Railway Passenger and due to negligence of Railway Department for not providing facility of foot over bridge and proper electricity light facilitating the passengers have no option but to cross the railway track.”

Providing amenities for safe journey, certainly comes within the legal liability of Railways. The Railways administration cannot take advantage of its own negligence in order to avoid liability to pay the compensation to the genuine claimants, who suffers risk of death due to no provision of foot over bridge,” Justice Srivastava added.

The Tribunal at Ranchi had dismissed the appellants' claim on the ground that the deceased did not die in an "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989.

Appellants contended no foot overbridge was constructed near the railway station to facilitate passenger movement from one side to another and deceased was forced to cross the railway track, where she was hit by an unidentified train.

The Court's primary focus in this appeal was to determine whether a bonafide passenger getting run over after completing his journey while trying to cross the track to go to the other side on account of non –availability of a Foot Over Bridge did not come within the purview of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act which defines “untoward incidents”?

The court acknowledged that in this case, it was undisputed that the deceased was a bonafide railway passenger, and her body was discovered near the Railway Station track.

Additionally, the court observed that the cause of death, determined through the inquest and post-mortem report, was a railway accident. The incident occurred when the deceased, after getting off the train at the end of her journey, was crossing the track to reach her home in the dark. She was struck by another train and tragically lost her life. There was no evidence indicating any intention on the deceased's part to harm herself or commit suicide, the court emphasized.

Consequently, the court concluded that the previous judgment was unjustifiable under the law and overturned it.

“It is held that deceased was bonafide passenger who died due to untoward incidents and the appellants being the dependants of the deceased are entitled to compensation under Section 124(A) of The Railways Act, 1989 to a sum of Rupees Eight Lacs (Rs. 8,000,00/-) with interest @ 6 % from the date of filing the application i.e. 13.03.2018 till the date of realisation. The aforementioned amount shall be deposited within six weeks before the tribunal and learned tribunal shall distribute the amount in equal proportion among the appellants, subject to due verification,” the Court held, while allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment.

Counsel/s For the Appellants : Ms. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, Advocate

Counsel/s For the Respondent : Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, CGC

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 76

Case Title: Suresh Ram vs. The Union of India

Case No.: M.A. No. 202 of 2020