General Coach Passengers Entitled To Similar Safety Standards As Premium Class Ones: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has emphasized that passengers travelling in general coach are entitled to the same safety standards as the ones in premium class.

The Court was considering an Appeal against rejection of claim by Railway Claims Tribunal.

The Bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi held, "This Court is constrained to observe that the Railway Administration must equally recognize and protect the life and dignity of passengers travelling in the General Class, just as it does for those travelling in higher classes of premium trains. 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 Appellant was represented by Advocate Shafiqullah, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Ranajna Agnihotri.

Facts of the Case

The Appellant along with his family members was travelling by Dakshin Express from Amla to Bhopal, possessing a valid journey ticket. The coach in which they were travelling was overcrowded with passengers. When the train arrived at Habibganj Station, due to pressure of passengers from behind, he fell down from the train and came under the wheels of train, as a result of which, both his legs were amputated above the knee.

The Claimant had filed a Claim Petition seeking compensation which was dismissed by the Tribunal citing the reason that the Appellant deliberately attempted to get down from moving train by compromising his own safety at a place other than the platform, which tantamounts to his own criminal act and cannot be considered as an accidental fall.

Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in not considering the fact that the Appellant was a bona fide passenger holding a valid journey ticket and was subjected to untoward accident in which both his legs got amputated. It was submitted that the Tribunal wrongly came to the conclusion that the Claimant had committed criminal act by trying to get down from the moving train whereas it was established by the Claimant that he fell down from moving train on account of pressure of overcrowded passengers.

Reasoning By Court

The Court found no merit in the defence raised by the Railway Administration that the injured-Claimant is not entitled to compensation merely because he was standing near the gate of the coach and attempted to alight when the train was approaching the platform.

It opined that the explanation of Railways is wholly unsatisfactory and deserves a strong rebuke.

"Besides the other drawbacks of Railways as observed by this Court recently, another flaw of Railway is that in long-distance trains, the two gates of each coach serve as common points for both entry and exit. There is no prescribed separate gate for boarding or de-boarding. In a normal train, there is no announcement for intimating the passengers about the side of platform in which the train is going to be halted. 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. In such circumstances, a passenger moving towards the gate in advance, with the genuine compulsion of ensuring a safe and timely exit, cannot be branded as negligent. On the contrary, it is the responsibility of the Railways to ensure regulated boarding and de-boarding to prevent overcrowding at the gates, to maintain proper announcement and provide safe conditions inside the coach", the Court observed.

It concluded that the plea of 'own negligence' or 'criminal act' raised by the Railways, without demonstrating any breach of statutory duty or misconduct on the part of the passenger, is wholly untenable.

"....The claimant did not jump from a moving train nor did he was engaged in any prohibited act. He merely positioned himself at the gate, which is an unavoidable conduct for any ordinary passenger intending to de-board at a busy station. The failure of the Railway Administration to ensure safe ingress and egress, coupled with absence of safeguards to prevent overcrowding near the gates, amounts to gross deficiency in service. The grievous injury suffered by the claimant leading to amputation of both his legs is a direct consequence of such systemic failure. Therefore, the Railways cannot evade statutory liability under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, by shifting the burden onto the victim. The claimant is entitled for full statutory compensation along with interest", the Court ruled.

The Appeal was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Raju Dhurvey v. Union Of India (2025:MPHC-JBP:57577)

Appearances:

Appellant- Advocates Shafiqullah, Mohd. Riyaz

Respondent- Advocates Ranajna Agnihotri, Om Prakash Agnihotri

Click here to read/ download Order