Passenger hit by train while crossing railway track in absence of foot over bridge entitled to compensation: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently held that if a passenger, who is forced to cross railway track to exit the station due to the absence of a foot over bridge (FOB) gets hit by a train, he would be entitled to compensation under the Railways Act [Sunita Manohar Gajbhiye vs Union of India].Single-judge Justice Abhay Ahuja of the Nagpur bench ruled that such a passenger cannot be said to be a negligent passenger."A person, who comes from a village looking for a job, boards a passenger train holding a valid journey ticket, alights from the train and is trying to exit the railway station in the absence of an overbridge, being forced to walk along the tracks and gets hit by another train and dies, cannot be said to be intentionally careless or negligent," the judge held in the order pronounced on October 10. The Court, therefore, quashed an order passed by a Railway Claims Tribunal, which held that a passenger travelling with a valid ticket ceases to be a bonafide passenger if he uses railway tracks and acts in a negligent manner. "Ergo, this Court is of the view that the deceased, who was a bonafide passenger who died due to an untoward incident and the appellants being the dependents of the deceased would be entitled to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act," the Court ruled .The bench was hearing a plea filed by the widow, son and mother of deceased Manohar Gajbhiye, who died in a train accident. As per the facts of the case, Manohar had travelled from Gondia to Rewral in a general passenger train. While cross the track, Manohar was hit by a train and died on the spot. The moving train also injured certain other persons. .However, the tribunal at Nagpur held that the deceased indulged in a negligent act and his death was not an "untoward accident" which provides for compensation under the Railways Act but a self-inflicted injury. .But Justice Ahuja quashed the said finding. He referred to the definition of a bonafide passenger as mentioned in the Railways Act, which states that a bonafide passenger is the one, who travels with a valid ticket or pass."It does not qualify that a person holding a ticket during journey, after alighting ceases to be ticketless or ceases to be a passenger just because he meets with an accident, which in the view of the tribunal or any authority is not an untoward incident. Neither the definition nor any of the provisions of the Railways Act suggest that a passenger ceases to be a passenger for this reason," the judge underscored. .The Railways Act does not contemplate or recognise this concept. Once it is held that a passenger was travelling with a valid ticket that fact cannot be negatived on the ground that the incident was not an untoward incident, the Court added. Therefore, the bench quashed the order of the tribunal passed on February 6, 2019 and ordered the South East Central Railways to pay ₹8 lakh to the Gajbhiye family within six weeks. .Advocate RG Bagul appeared for the Appellants.Advocate Neerja Chaubey represented the Railways. .[Read Judgment]