Judgment

Dr. Anand, J.-Special leave granted.

2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court dated 1st July, 1991 by which his appeal against summary dismissal of Writ Petition No. 2048 of 1985 was dismissed.

3. It is an unfortunate case. The wife of the appellant Smt. Shantadevi was at the relevant time working as a Senior Lecturer in English. On 3rd January, 1981, the fateful day, she left for her college and travelled, as usual, by Harbour Line local train to Bandra from Kings Circle. From Bandra, she boarded Western Railway local train for Andheri. She was travelling on a first class railway pass in the first class ladies’ compartment. Before she could reach her destination at Andheri, she was criminally assaulted and also robbed of her gold chain, three bangles and a wrist watch between Bandra and Andheri railway station while the train was in motion. She pulled the alarm chain but despite of the ringing of the alarm bell neither the guard nor the motorman stopped the train. She ultimately succumbed to the injuries in the compartment. The guard, in his statement recorded during the criminal trial by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay, admitted that “After I heard the bell, I looked to the eastern and western side of the train and I could not find any untoward inci­dent. Meanwhile the driver had reduced his speed of the train and asked me by giving two beats whether train should stop or not. In reply I gave two beats asking the driver to proceed as there was no necessity to stop the train.” The guard went on to admit that because of clearance for the signal not having been obtained, the train stopped towards the south of gate no. 22 for about a minute and “even at that time the bell in his cabin was ringing.” The train reached platform No. 4 of Andheri railway station at 10.47 a.m. At Andheri railway station, the guard came near the ladies’ first class compart­ment from where the alarm chain had been pulled. He peeped inside and found that a woman was lying in a pool of blood. On being asked.

“Q. When you heard the warning bell of the alarm, did you give in­struction to the driver to stop the train?”

The guard replied :

“Ans. No”.

So far as the motorman is concerned, his evidence is almost on the same lines as that of the guard. The accused who were absconding were subsequently tried but we are not concerned at the moment with the outcome of the trial of that case.

4. The appellant made a representation to the Chairman, Railway Board on 29th March, 1981 requesting for compensation for the death of his wife. His representation was rejected by respondent No. 2 who informed him that the liability of the railways could arise only in case of railway accidents and not where death takes place as a result of an attempted murder in a running train. The appellant’s writ petition and writ appeal thereafter failed in the High Court. Hence this appeal.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and Dr. Singhvi, whom we had requested to act as amicus curiae in this case.

6. From the evidence of the guard and the motorman, it is quite obvi­ous that despite the pulling of the alarm chain the train was not made to stop. The whole purpose of providing alarm chain in the compart­ments of a railway train was, thus, frustrated. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact, that if an alarm chain is wrongly pulled, the person responsible for pulling it is liable to be fined.

7. There is a common law duty of taking reasonable care which must be attached to all carries including the railways. In this case, there has been a breach of that duty and the negligence on the part of the railway staff is writ large. Had the train been stopped and first-aid provided when the alarm chain was pulled, the possibility that the deceased may not have met her death, even after the assault in the course of robbery, is a possibility which we cannot totally rule out. The manner in which the guard and the motorman acted exposes a total casu