“The deceased was at peak of his negligence”: that is how the Gujarat High Court describes the driver as it rejects compensation claim by his family over a 2003 death at an unmanned railway crossing, finding no breach of duty by the Railways proved.
Ahmedabad: A claim of Rs 7,43,000 over a 2003 death at an unmanned level crossing in Morbi district has failed in the Gujarat High Court, which upheld a Tribunal’s finding that the auto-rickshaw driver’s own negligence caused his death, dismissed his family’s first appeal and held that no breach of duty by the Railways was proved [Jyotiben Gordhanbhai Dabhi and Others v. Nilesh Gopal Parmar and Another].
The driver’s wife and children filed First Appeal No. 4447 of 2009 against the August 25, 2009 judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Morbi. Justice J.C. Doshi, sitting singly, reserved judgment on September 30, 2026 and delivered it on October 22, 2026.
The crossing on the Makansar road
On August 27, 2003, Bachubhai Dabhi was driving his auto-rickshaw over an unmanned railway level crossing on the Morbi-Rafaleshwar (Makansar) road when a train hit it and dragged it along the tracks. He died. An FIR was registered against him, and an abated summary followed.
His wife and children sought Rs 7,43,000 with interest and costs in MACP No. 170 of 2003, against the vehicle’s owner and the Union of India through the Railway Administration. The Tribunal held the deceased wholly negligent, which left the Railways not liable. It also noted that the second defendant’s ownership of the vehicle was unproved because the registration record was not produced, and it dismissed the petition.
ALSO READ: Standing Near the Train Door Due to Peak-Hour Rush Is Not Negligence : Bombay High Court
Who had to prove what
The Judge began with the Railways’ obligations. Statutory duties under Section 13 arise only when the Central Government makes a requisition, he noted. A common law duty of care does remain, but it was for the claimants to prove a breach of it, and the record did not show one.
The evidence pointed the other way. The wife did not see the accident and accepted that her husband’s negligence led to it, and one witness for the claimants conceded that the deceased could have avoided the mishap by taking precautions. Both loco pilots said they blew the whistle continuously, and a sign board stood at the spot. No omission by the Railways was proved. Agreeing with the Tribunal, the Court described the deceased’s conduct in these words:
the deceased was at peak of his negligence
The claimants had also questioned the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The High Court held that even if the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal could hear the matter, the claim was rightly dismissed on account of the deceased’s own negligence. It found the authorities cited by the claimants distinguishable on facts, dismissed the appeal and directed the record to be returned to the concerned court.
What the statutes ask of drivers and of the Railways
For drivers, Section 131 of the Motor Vehicles Act requires anyone approaching an unguarded railway level crossing to stop, look for trains from both sides and cross only when it is safe. Under Section 161 of the Railways Act, crossing an unmanned level crossing without stopping, or with a train in sight, is treated as negligence.
For the Railways, the reference point is Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1997) 8 SCC 683, decided on October 22, 1997 by a Bench of Justices S.B. Majmudar and M. Jagannadha Rao. The Supreme Court held there that railways owe users of a level crossing a common law duty of reasonable care. Section 13 of the Railways Act, 1890 only empowers the Central Government to require gates, chains, bars or gatemen, and gates and a watchman are not needed at every unmanned crossing. The Railways were held negligent in that case, and the bus driver was also found negligent for failing to stop, look and listen.
The two sides’ cases
The claimants argued that the Tribunal wrongly put the blame on the driver alone. Common law principles of negligence applied, they said, the route was busy, signage and visibility were lacking, the loco pilot was negligent, and the Tribunal had relied on a witness who was never cross-examined. They added that a motor vehicle was involved, which gave the Tribunal jurisdiction under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Railways, for their part, laid the blame on the deceased alone. He was in a hurry, they said, overtook two rickshaws that had stopped at the crossing and did not stop to check for trains. They maintained that the loco pilots blew the horn continuously, that a sign board stood at the spot, and that the claimants should have gone to the Railway Claims Tribunal.
What the ruling means for such claims
Claims of this kind turn on evidence. Even where the Railways owe a common law duty of care, claimants must establish a breach, and a driver who skips the stop-and-check precautions in the Motor Vehicles Act and the Railways Act can lose the claim altogether.
The judgment also reaffirms that the absence of gates at an unmanned crossing does not, by itself, fix liability on the Railways unless an omission is proved on the record.
Case Title: Jyotiben Gordhanbhai Dabhi and Others v. Nilesh Gopal Parmar and Another [R/First Appeal No. 4447 of 2009]
Bench: Justice J.C. Doshi, Gujarat High Court
Date of Judgment: October 22, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Anand B. Gogia, B.B. Gogia and R.B. Gogia for the appellants; Advocate K.M. Parikh for defendant no. 2; Advocate Archana U. Amin, assisted by Advocate Manish Malaviya, for the Railway Administration (Union of India).