A person travelling on suburban trains during peak hours may face serious danger while standing near the door, yet the Bombay High Court said this cannot be treated as negligence. The court upheld compensation and rejected the Railways’ contributory negligence claim.
A person commuting for work on suburban trains during peak hours faces life-threatening risks by standing near the train door, which the Bombay High Court ruled cannot be classified as negligence.
This decision upheld the compensation awarded to the family of an individual who lost his life in a railway accident.
Justice Jitendra Jain, presiding over a single bench, dismissed the Railway authority’s argument that the victim’s actions contributed to the accident, where he was standing on the footboard close to the train door.
The Union government had appealed to the high court, contesting a December 2009 ruling from the Railway Claims Tribunal that granted compensation to the victim’s family.
Earlier, On October 28, 2005, the man fell from a train while traveling from Bhayendar to Marine Lines on the Western Railway and later died from his injuries.
The bench rejected the Railways’ claim of negligence, highlighting that a Virar-Churchgate train is excessively crowded, especially during the morning rush, making it challenging for passengers to board, particularly at Bhayendar station.
The court noted,
“This is a situation even today; therefore, to contend that a passenger is negligent while standing near the door cannot be accepted. If a person has to travel for his work and it is very difficult to enter the compartment, the passenger has no choice but to risk his life by standing near the door,”
Acknowledging this reality, the bench emphasized that the law does not stipulate that a passenger standing near the door due to overcrowding would not be considered a victim of an “untoward incident” if they fell.
The Railways also contended that the victim was not a legitimate passenger since no ticket or pass was found on him after the accident.
However, the court pointed out that the man’s wife had presented his local train pass along with an identity card to the tribunal, demonstrating that he was a bona fide passenger during the incident.
The court stated,
“The genuineness of the local pass stands proved. There could be various reasons that on the date of the accident, the deceased may have forgotten the pass at home, but that would not disentitle the compensation amount to the dependants,”
Ultimately, the court found no errors in the tribunal’s ruling to grant compensation to the victim’s family and dismissed the appeal filed by the Railways.