Beyond the Tracks: MP High Court Rejects 'Criminal Act' Defense in Train Accident Case

In a significant verdict that puts the onus of passenger safety squarely on the shoulders of the Indian Railways, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur has ruled that a passenger positioning themselves at a train door during extreme overcrowding cannot be labeled as having committed a "criminal act."

Justice Himanshu Joshi, while hearing the appeal of Raju Dhurvey, set aside a decision by the Railway Claims Tribunal that had previously denied compensation to a man who suffered traumatic double-leg amputation after falling from a moving train.

The Tragedy at Habibganj

In June 2012, Raju Dhurvey was travelling from Amla to Bhopal on the Dakshin Express. According to his account, the train was severely overcrowded. As it approached Habibganj Station, the pressure from the surging crowd caused him to fall from the coach, resulting in his legs being severed by the train wheels.

The Railway Claims Tribunal had initially dismissed his plea for compensation, arguing that the fall was a result of his own "criminal act"—specifically, an attempt to alight from a moving train before it reached the platform.

A Rebuke to Systemic Neglect

The High Court’s response to the Railways' defensive position was stern. Justice Joshi characterized the argument as "wholly unsatisfactory" and deserving of "strong rebuke."

The court noted that systemic flaws in Indian long-distance trains—such as the lack of separate entry and exit gates and poor communication regarding platform arrival—force passengers to crowd the doors well before arrival. In this context, the court argued, a passenger moving to the door is not acting negligently, but responding to the practical impossibility of alighting from a crowded, unmanaged coach.

Key Observations

The High Court emphasized that the value of human life remains constant regardless of the ticket class.

• "The Railway itself has permitted, by long-standing design and practice, a situation where passengers naturally rush towards the door area well before the train halts, especially at busy stations where the fear of congestion, crowd pressure and pushing is real."
• "The value of human life does not vary with the category of ticket purchased. Every passenger, irrespective of class, is entitled to the same standard of safety, care and vigilance from the Railways."
• "The plea of 'own negligence' or 'criminal act' raised by the Railways... is wholly untenable. The claimant did not jump from a moving train nor did he was engaged in any prohibited act."

Implications for Future Claims

By invoking Section 124-A of the Railways Act , which mandates compensation for "untoward incidents," the High Court has clarified that the Railways cannot evade its statutory liability by blaming passengers for the consequences of its own overcrowded infrastructure.

The matter has been remanded back to the Railway Claims Tribunal in Bhopal, with an explicit order to calculate and award compensation in accordance with the law. This judgment serves as a vital precedent for future victims of similar railway accidents, reinforcing the principle that systematic failures of the transport provider cannot be shifted onto the shoulders of the travelling public.