Court finds deceased rickshaw driver solely negligent for crossing railway track without statutory precautions; Railway Administration held not liable for accident
In a significant judgment delivered on October 22, 2026, the Gujarat High Court, presided over by Mr. J. C. Doshi, J., dismissed an appeal filed by the family members of a deceased auto rickshaw driver who lost his life in a collision with a train at an unmanned railway crossing. The appeal challenged the dismissal of a motor accident claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation from the Railway Administration and the vehicle owner.
The tragic incident occurred on August 27, 2003, when the deceased, Bachubhai Dabhi, was attempting to cross an unmanned railway level crossing (No. 21C) on the Morbi-Rafaleshwar road. The auto rickshaw was hit and dragged by the Railway Train No. 9502, resulting in the death of the driver. The claimants - the widow and children of the deceased - alleged negligence on part of the Railway Administration and sought compensation amounting to Rs. 7,43,000.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Morbi had dismissed the claim petition, holding that the deceased was solely negligent in crossing the unmanned railway crossing without observing mandatory safety precautions, in breach of both the Railways Act, 1989, and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal further found no liability on the part of the Railway Administration or the vehicle owner, as the latter's ownership was unproven.
On appeal, the High Court thoroughly analyzed the evidence, statutory provisions, and precedents. The Court emphasized the statutory duties cast upon drivers at unmanned railway crossings, particularly Section 161 of the Railways Act, 1989, which criminalizes negligent crossing without stopping to observe approaching rolling stock, and Section 131 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which mandates drivers to stop and ensure no train is approaching before crossing.
The Court noted that the deceased had ignored two other rickshaws waiting at the crossing, hurriedly crossed the tracks, and got frightened upon seeing the approaching train, which caused the vehicle to stop on the tracks leading to the collision. Testimonies, including the deceased's widow's admission, supported the finding of the deceased's sole negligence.
Importantly, the Court found that the Railway Administration had complied with its duties: the loco pilot and co-loco pilot testified that the train had been continuously blowing its horn, and sign boards warning of the unmanned crossing were present near the site. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1997), clarifying that statutory liability on Railways for erecting gates or barriers at level crossings arises only if the Central Government issues a requisition under Section 13 of the Railways Act, 1890. Absent such requisition, Railways' liability is limited unless common law negligence is proven.
The Court found no evidence of omission or failure by the Railway Administration to exercise reasonable care or statutory duty. Thus, the Railway was absolved of liability. The Court also clarified that mere involvement of a motor vehicle in an accident with a train does not automatically confer jurisdiction on Motor Accident Claims Tribunal if the accident is caused solely by the vehicle driver's negligence.
Concluding, the Gujarat High Court upheld the dismissal of the claim petition, emphasizing the driver's statutory and common law duty to take full precaution at unmanned railway crossings and rejecting the claimants' arguments of Railway negligence.
This judgment reinforces the principle that drivers must strictly adhere to safety norms at unguarded railway crossings and that Railways cannot be held liable without proof of failure to perform statutory or common law duties. It also reiterates the limited scope of claims Tribunal jurisdiction when the accident involves a train and a motor vehicle.
Bottom Line:
Motor accident claim arising out of collision between auto rickshaw and train at unmanned railway crossing - Where evidence showed deceased driver hurriedly crossed without taking statutory precautions, despite sign board, continuous whistle by train and other rickshaws waiting, deceased held solely negligent - Railway not liable and dismissal of claim petition upheld.
Statutory provision(s):
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sections 131, 161, 165, 166, 173; Railways Act, 1989 Sections 13, 161
Jyotiben Gordhanbhai Dabhi v. Nilesh Gopal Parmar, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3002537
