The Bombay High Court denied railway accident compensation to an intoxicated passenger who admitted consuming four large pegs of alcohol before being hit while standing dangerously close to the platform edge. The Court said intoxication shows negligence, barring compensation.
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court denied railway accident compensation to an injured passenger after determining that he had consumed four large pegs of alcohol prior to the incident.
The passenger was standing at the edge of the platform when he was struck by a train.
The Court ruled that passengers who sustain injuries while intoxicated are not eligible for railway accident compensation, even if the incident qualifies as an untoward railway accident under the law. The Court reasoned that intoxication can impair judgment and lead to hazardous behavior.
Justice Jitendra Jain took a moment to reflect on the wider implications of alcohol consumption while delivering the decision.
The Court remarked,
“Alcohol ruins, it ruins everything… Physical and mental health, relationships, causes family breakdown, social dysfunction, career disruption, and has severe long-term lifestyle consequences. I am reminded of this quote by F. Scott Fitzgerald: ‘First you take a drink, then the drink takes a drink, then the drink takes you,’.
The appeal stemmed from a 2014 order issued by the Railway Claims Tribunal in Mumbai, which had previously dismissed the claim for compensation under the Railways Act, 1989. The injured passenger had filed a complaint seeking damages for injuries sustained in a railway incident that took place in the early hours of March 10, 2001.
Court records indicated that the man was awaiting a train to Borivali at around midnight when he was struck by an oncoming train, resulting in serious injuries. Railway staff first transported him to a government hospital before later transferring him to Bombay Hospital for further treatment.
Medical records from Bombay Hospital confirmed that the passenger had consumed four large pegs of alcohol before dinner. The High Court emphasized this report, noting it was based on the patient’s own admission at the time of treatment and was never disputed during the proceedings.
The tribunal had previously turned down the claim on the basis that the passenger had been “knocked down,” arguing that the incident did not qualify as an untoward railway accident. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the passenger was not crossing the tracks but rather standing near the edge of the platform when the train arrived, which could still be considered an accidental railway incident.
ALSO READ: Standing Near the Train Door Due to Peak-Hour Rush Is Not Negligence : Bombay High Court
Despite this, the Court examined the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, which prohibits compensation if an injury occurs as a result of actions taken while under the influence of alcohol. The Court concluded that consuming a significant amount of alcohol constituted intoxication, and standing near the platform edge in such a state represented risky conduct directly linked to the injury.
The injured passenger’s attorney cited previous cases where compensation was granted despite references to intoxication. However, the Court noted those cases were distinct due to the absence of confirmed medical evidence. In the current situation, the hospital records clearly documented alcohol consumption.
As a result, the Court determined that while the incident could be classified as an untoward occurrence, the statutory exclusion related to intoxication applied, leading it to dismiss the appeal.
Advocate Sainand Chougule represented the injured appellant, while advocates Chetan C. Agrawal and Rushikesh Bhorania appeared on behalf of the Western Railways and the Union of India (respondent).
Case Title: Harish Narayan Suvarna v. Union Of India.