Back
Mere Negligence While De-Boarding Train Not '':
In a significant ruling reinforcing the "no fault" liability principle under the Railways Act, the has held that a passenger's ordinary negligence while de-boarding a train cannot be equated with "" to deny compensation. The judgment, delivered by Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury, overturned a order and granted compensation to the family of a woman who died after falling from a stationary train.
The Tragic Journey
On , Suparna Mondal was travelling with her husband Sukumar Mondal and their two children from Jhargram to Howrah on the Jhargram Express. The train, an express service, had no scheduled stop at Bagnan—the family's intended alighting point. When the train halted between Uluberia and Fuleshwar due to a red signal, Sukumar and the children got down. As Suparna attempted to follow, the train suddenly started moving, causing her to fall and suffer severe head injuries.
She was rushed to Uluberia General Hospital, then referred to P.G. Hospital, later to Alampur Green View Hospital, and finally to Howrah General Hospital, where she succumbed to her injuries on .
The Legal Battle
The dismissed the compensation claim on two grounds: that the incident was not an "" under , and that the claimant failed to prove Suparna was a passenger since no ticket was recovered.
The Railways argued that Suparna's attempt to alight at a non-stationary point was reckless, amounting to , and that the husband's failure to produce a ticket undermined the claim.
Court's Analysis: Negligence ≠
Justice Chowdhury meticulously examined the provision and precedents. He noted that Section 124A imposes on the railway administration for "untoward incidents," which includes the of a passenger from a train. The only exceptions are suicide, , criminal acts, intoxication, or natural causes.
Relying on the 's decision in
, the High Court emphasized that "
" requires an intention to cause harm, not mere negligence.
"The concept of '
' would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree,"
the court observed, quoting the apex court.
The judgment further drew on
, which held that falling while boarding or alighting from a train constitutes an "
" and thus an
.
"It will not legally make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when she fell down or whether she was only trying to get into the train when she fell down,"
the
had stated.
The Ticket Conundrum
On the issue of the missing ticket, the court cited its earlier decision in
, holding that the absence of a ticket does not defeat a legitimate claim when the overall evidence establishes the passenger's
. In this case, the husband was travelling with the deceased and could have held the ticket.
"Moreover when a passenger completes the journey there is no ground to preserve a general railway ticket,"
the court noted.
Key Observations
"Thus from the Judicial decisions as well as from the provisions of Section 124A of the Railways Act it will be clear that mere negligence of the passenger while travelling in a train is no ground to deny the compensation."
"In the instant case the victim attempted to get down from the train when the train was standing and her husband already got down from the train thus in such circumstances she cannot be faulted for attempting to get down from the train although the train did not reach the platform."
Final Decision and Implications
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the Railways to pay compensation of either ₹4 lakh with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim, or ₹8 lakh—whichever is higher. The amount is to be deposited with the Registrar General of the within eight weeks.
This ruling clarifies that by a passenger is not a defense under the of the Railways Act. It provides much-needed relief to families of victims who die in train accidents, even when some degree of passenger error is involved, as long as the death results from an as defined by law.
