Standing near train door in peak hours not negligence, says Bombay High Court; upholds accident compensation

A single bench of Justice Jitendra Jain on Monday refused to accept the Railway authority's contention that the accident was caused due to the negligent behaviour of a victim, who was standing on the footboard near the train door.

Mumbai: A person travelling for work in suburban trains during peak hours has no choice but to risk his life by standing near the train door, and this cannot be termed as negligence, the Bombay High Court said, upholding the compensation granted to the family of a man killed in a railway accident.

A single bench of Justice Jitendra Jain on Monday refused to accept the Railway authority's contention that the accident was caused due to the negligent behaviour of the victim, who was standing on the footboard near the train door.

The Union government had filed an appeal in the high court, challenging a December 2009 order of the Railway Claims Tribunal granting compensation to the victim's family.

On October 28, 2005, the man fell from the train while travelling from Bhayendar to Marine Lines on the Western Railway, and succumbed to his injuries a few days later.

The bench, while refusing to accept the Railways' argument that the deceased was negligent, noted that a Virar-Churchgate train is crowded, especially during morning peak hours, and it is difficult for any passenger to enter the compartment, especially at the Bhayendar railway station.

"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," the court noted.

The court cannot brush away this reality, it said.

The bench further pointed out that there was no provision in the law stating that if a person is standing near the door due to a heavy rush and he or she falls, such an incident would not be covered under the definition of "untoward incident".

The Railways, in its appeal, also raised the contention that the victim was not a bona fide passenger, as no ticket or pass was found on his body at the time of the accident.

The court, however, noted that the wife of the deceased had produced his local train pass along with the identity card before the tribunal, proving that the victim was a bona fide passenger at the time of the accident.

"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," the court said.

It said there was no infirmity in the tribunal's order granting compensation to the victim's family and disposed of the appeal filed by the Railways.