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

"A person who comes from a village looking for a job, boards a passenger train holding a valid journey ticket, alights from the train and is trying to exit the Railway Station in the absence of overbridge being forced to walk along the tracks and gets hit by another train and dies, cannot be said to be intentionally careless or negligent", the court stated.

Justice Abhay Ahuja of the Nagpur Bench allowed the appeal filed by the widow, son, and mother of a man who died after being hit by a train while crossing the railway track and awarded a compensation of Rs. 8 Lakhs to the appellants.

The deceased had travelled from Gondia to Rewral on a valid ticket. At Rewral, after alighting from the train he was walking along the railway track when he got hit by another train and died on the spot.

The Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur rejected the claim of compensation filed by his family members stating that the deceased died due to his own negligent act and he was not a bonafide passenger after he had de-boarded the train. Further, the incident was not an untoward incident under section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. Hence the appeal.

Advocate R. G. Bagul for the appellants submitted that there was no foot over bridge at the railway station on the date of the incident. Before the foot over bridge was opened, the passengers had to get down on the platform and walk along the railway track or cross it in order to exit the station. This clearly shows negligence on the part of the railway authorities. There was no fault of the deceased in the incident.

Advocate Neerja Chaubey for the Railways contended that it is only because of his carelessness and negligence that the deceased got hit by the train. A prudent person would be more vigilant while crossing the railway track particularly while then there is no over bridge.

The court referred to the definition of 'passenger' under section 2(29) of the Railways Act and observed that the definition does not suggest that a passenger ceases to be a passenger after alighting from the train and meeting with an accident. The court noted that the Railways Act does not contemplate or recognise this concept.

The court relied on Rakesh Saini v. Union of India in which the Delhi High Court in a similar case held that the deceased could not be considered negligent but it was the railway administration that is negligent and the dependents are entitled to compensation.

The court noted that the foot over bridge at the railway station has been opened for passenger only after the incident. The passengers before that would have no other option but to walk along the tracks or cross them.

The deceased could not have imagined that a train would be approaching and hit him, said the court.

The court further noted that the Railways Act is a beneficial legislation and the provisions should be given a liberal interpretation and not a literal or hyper technical one.

It relied on Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar in which the Supreme Court held that section 124 A of the Railways Act lays down strict liability in case of railway accidents.

The court held that it is irrelevant as to who was at fault when it comes to section 124-A of the Railways Act.

It observed that in the present case there is no evidence or even a claim by the railway authorities that it was a case of self-inflicted injury.

"Ergo, this Court is of the view that the deceased, who was a bonafide passenger who died due to an untoward incident and the appellants being the dependents of the deceased would be entitled to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act", the court held and set aside the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal rejecting compensation to the appellants.

Case no. – First Appeal No. 419 of 2019

Case title – Sunita Manohar Gajbhiye v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 390