Passenger Having Valid Ticket But Boarded Wrong Train Entitled To Accident Compensation Under Railways Act: Bombay HC

"Nowhere the above said two provisions (sections 2(29) and 124-A) which define "passenger" stipulate that to be a passenger one has to hold a ticket only for any particular train on which the person is to travel. The Section merely requires a valid ticket for travelling by train carrying passengers on any date".

Justice Abhay Ahuja of the Nagpur bench upheld the compensation granted by the Railway Claims Tribunal in a case where the victims boarded the wrong train and fell down while trying to alight from it.

A mother-daughter duo wanted to go from Nagpur to Pandhurna for making marriage purchases and had valid tickets for the same. They boarded GT Express Train going towards Chennai i.e., the opposite direction. Realising that they boarded the wrong train, they tried to alight at Ajni railway station which is not a scheduled stop of the train. They fell and the mother succumbed to her injuries while the daughter was grievously injured and both her legs were amputated. The Railway Claims Tribunal awarded compensation. Hence, the Railways filed the present appeals.

The Railways' case was that the daughter had a Masters in Computer Application and was intelligent enough to understand that they got into the wrong train. But they were negligent and boarded the wrong train. Further, despite knowing that a chain can be pulled for stopping a train if required, they alighted the running train at a station not having scheduled halt. Thus, the mother-daughter duo did not have a valid ticket and this was a case of self-infected injury.

Section 2(29) defines a passenger as a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. As per the explanation of section 124A of the Act, passenger includes a person who has a purchased valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers on any date and becomes the victim in an untoward incident.

The court said that the aforementioned provisions do not specify that the passenger has to hold a ticket for any particular train on which the person has to travel.

The court noted that both mother and daughter were holding a valid ticket and the ticket only indicates the boarding point and destination as well as the date of travel. It does not include the train by which the person has to travel.

The court said that the Railways Act is a beneficial legislation and section 124A has to be interpreted liberally. In this particular case, the mother daughter duo purchased a ticket, they were in a train carrying passengers on the date mentioned on the ticket, and they became victims while trying to alight at Ajni railway station.

Therefore, the ingredients of section 124A, explanation (ii) have been met and the mother and daughter were bonafide passengers, the court concluded.

The court said that this incident is an untoward incident under section 123(c)(2) of the Act.

The court noted that the train was going at a slow speed at Ajni railway station as per the evidence of the Trackman. The facts don't suggest that the mother and daughter had any intention to inflict injury on themselves, the court said.

"When a passenger realizes that he has got into a wrong train, the natural thought that would come to her mind is to somehow or other get off that train and that is exactly what the daughter and her mother did when they got off the GT Express Train going in the wrong direction, when the train slowed down near Ajni Railway Station", the court said.

The court noted that the daughter was about to get married a few days after the incident. "By no stretch of imagination, it can be said to be a case of self-inflicted injury or their own criminal act", the court held.

Therefore, the court did not find any perversity or error in the tribunal's judgement and dismissed both the appeals.

Case no. – First Appeal Nos. 113 and 114 of 2022

Case title – Union of India v. Reena D/o Kishor Kharwade with one connected case

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 482