SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(Ori) 266

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Susanta Chatterji, S.C. Datta, JJ.
PARIKHITA BEHERA AND ANOTHER - APPELLANT
Versus
THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Original Jurisdiction Case No. 3299 of 1996
Decided On : 25-04-1997

Advocates Appeared:
K. Jena and J.K. Mohapatra, for the Appellant; B. Pal, P.C. Panda, A.K. Mishra, S.K. Ojha and P. Das, for the Respondent

Railway authorities are liable to pay compensation for accidents caused due to their negligence in keeping unmanned level crossings open.

Headnote:

RAILWAY ACCIDENT - UNMANNED LEVEL CROSSING - NEGLIGENCE - COMPENSATION - RAILWAY ACT, 1989, SECTION 124 - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY.

Fact of the Case:

A 15-year-old boy was killed when he was hit by a train at an unmanned level crossing. The boy's parents filed a writ petition seeking compensation from the railway authorities, alleging negligence.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the railway authorities were negligent in keeping the unmanned level crossing open, which became an accident spot. The court also found that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the victim boy.

Issues: 1. Whether the railway authorities were negligent in keeping the unmanned level crossing open? 2. Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the victim boy? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the railway authorities were negligent in keeping the unmanned level crossing open, which became an accident spot. The court relied on the fact that the railway authorities had received several complaints about the unmanned level crossing and had failed to take any action to man the crossing. 2. The court held that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the victim boy. The court noted that the boy was only 15 years old and that he was not aware of the danger of crossing the unmanned level crossing. 3. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to compensation. The court awarded the petitioners Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh) as compensation.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition in part and directed the railway authorities to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh) to the petitioners.

JUDGMENT :

Susanta Chatterji. J.

1. The petitioners are the unfortunate parents of one Susanta Behera who died by a train accident on 27.10.1994. Said Susanta Behera was a student of Class IX and he was returning to his village by a bi-cycle after attending tuition and while he was passing through the unmanned level crossing near Bari-Thangada Passenger Halt of the South Eastern Railway he was hit by Utkal Express and died at the spot.

2. It is stated that the deceased was the only son of his parents. The alleged accident occurred due to the sheer negligence of the railway authorities. The deceased had no fault of his own. It is further placed on record that in the aforesaid unmanned level crossing apart from Susanta Behera many other persons and animals have lost their lives and in spite of the public demands and repeated representations, the railway authorities did not take any step to avoid the accident at the particular spot. The details of the accident, which had occurred, have been averred in the writ petition.

3. It is contended that the railway authorities time to time assured the public to take immediate step to avoid the accident at the aforesaid level crossing and to compensate the legal representatives of the victims in order to pacify the people and enable the train to move peacefully. Many Newspaper cuttings have been referred indicating the past accidents, strike and assurance of the railway authorities.

4. The petitioners were also assured similarly while the accident of their only son took place and the railway authorities also assured to release suitable compensation in their favour but all promises were in vain. The petitioners made repeated reminders and representations but there was no reply from the other side. All these facts in greater details have been mentioned in the writ petition.

5. It is highlighted that the Railway authorities committed deliberate negligence in not taking steps to discontinue to run the train amidst busy localities and the unmanned level crossing became a great menace. No reasonable steps were taken nor there was caution board or any indicating to the pedestrians and passersby of the unmanned level crossing.

6. It is pointed out that there is an obligation on the part of the Railway authorities to ensure that whenever a train passes over a thoroughfare adequate warning should be given to the public about the passing of the train so that accidents may be avoided. No enquiry was conducted as regards the aformentioned accident in the manner provided under the Railways Act and the act of negligence on the part of the Railway authorities is an accomplished fact. Detailing all these facts and circumstances and alleging the negligence on the part of the Railway authorities, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :

"............a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ may kindly be issued against the opposite parties to take appropriate steps in the unmanned level crossing near Bari-Thangada passenger halt by which the future accidents can be avoided and compensate the petitioners for loss of their only son to the tune of Rs. two lakhs which is the minimum liability of the Railway authorities to a passenger as per Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989..........."

7. The writ petition is opposed by filing, a comprehensive counter affidavit. It is disclosed therein that on 27.10.1994 while 2478 UP Utkal Express Ex. Nizamuddin to Puri was on run between Dhanmandal and Bayree stations, one person at Km. 379/10-11 with his bi-cycle was hit with the locomotive of the said train at about 9.15 hours. The train was stopped by the driver at Km. 380/3. The Driver, Assistant Driver and the Train Guard at Km. 379/11 found only boy aged 15 years run over and lying on the left side of the track-half portion and the cycle after having broken lying in the middle of the track. The information was given by the Train staff to Khurda Road Control Office for further action. The unruly mob of the

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top