The court confirms liability of Southern Railway for "untoward incident" leading to the death of a passenger, mandates compensation to the bereaved family.
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has upheld the decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai, mandating Southern Railway to compensate the family of a deceased passenger who succumbed to injuries sustained in a stampede at Guindy Railway Station. The court dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India, represented by the Southern Railway's General Manager, challenging the Tribunal's decision to award Rs. 8,00,000 to the victim's family.
The case revolves around the tragic incident that occurred on November 11, 2023, when Raguraman, a bona fide passenger traveling with a valid monthly season ticket, was caught in a heavy rush while climbing the foot over bridge at Guindy Railway Station. The rush caused him to fall, resulting in fatal head injuries. The deceased's family, comprising his wife, daughter, and son, sought compensation under Sections 123, 124A, and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989, claiming the incident as an "untoward incident."
The Railway Claims Tribunal initially awarded the compensation, which the Union of India contested, arguing that the death was due to natural causes and not compensable under the said provisions. However, the High Court, presided by Justice Shamim Ahmed, rejected these contentions. The court observed that the post-mortem report clearly indicated death due to head injury sustained in the fall, refuting the railway's claim of natural death.
In a detailed judgment, the court emphasized the interpretation of the Railways Act, underscoring its nature as beneficial legislation aimed at protecting passengers' rights. Justice Ahmed stressed that the provisions related to compensation for railway accidents and untoward incidents should receive a liberal and purposive interpretation rather than a narrow one. The court also highlighted the railway administration's responsibility for ensuring passenger safety within station premises, including areas like foot over bridges, which passengers are entitled to use with a valid ticket.
The High Court's judgment corrected the Tribunal's clerical error, which misclassified the incident as an accidental fall from a train, affirming instead that the fall occurred on the foot over bridge within the station precincts, constituting an untoward incident under the Railways Act. The court's decision reinforces the principle of strict liability, obliging the railway to compensate for the loss without needing to prove negligence or fault.
The court's ruling not only reaffirms the rights of passengers but also serves as a reminder to the railway authorities about their obligations to maintain safe environments in bustling railway stations. The compensation is to be paid with interest calculated from the date of the incident until full payment. The judgment also underscores the judiciary's role in interpreting welfare legislation to advance social justice and safeguard citizens' rights.
Bottom Line :
Railways Act, 1989 - Death of a bona fide passenger due to head injury sustained after being pushed in heavy crowd/stampede on steps of foot over bridge within railway station precincts amounts to an "untoward incident" - Railway Administration liable to pay compensation under Section 124A - Beneficial provisions to receive liberal interpretation.
Statutory provision(s): Railways Act, 1989 Sections 123(c), 124A, 125
Union of India v. Asha.K, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc id # 2989545
