Railways Liable For Contributory Negligence If Overcrowding By Ticketless Passengers Causes Death Of Bona Fide Traveller: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Holding that Railways has a duty to ensure that only valid ticket holders are on board, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that failure to restrain ticketless passengers leading to overcrowding amounts to contributory negligence, making the Railways liable to pay compensation.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that Railways can be held liable for contributory negligence if overcrowding caused by ticketless passengers results in the death of a bona fide passenger.
The Court observed that allowing unauthorised travellers to board trains reflects a failure of supervision and safety by the Railways, and such negligence cannot absolve it of liability.
The Court was hearing an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal that denied compensation on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
A Bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi, while deciding the matter, observed that “it is the responsibility of the Railways to ensure that only valid ticket holders are on board. If they fail to detect and restrain a ticketless person from boarding and if that person is injured or dies in an accident, then this would be one of the reasons to hold the Railways liable to pay the compensation because the Railways failed in their duty of care, supervision and safety.”
The Bench further held that “such failure amounts to contributory negligence on the part of the Railways Administration.”
The appellants were represented by Advocate Ratnakar Prasad Mishra, while Advocate Satyendra Kumar Patel appeared for the Railways.
Background
The appellants’ son was travelling on a passenger train between Bhilai Power House and Durg in 2006 when, due to heavy overcrowding and pushing inside the compartment, he fell from the moving train and died. The post-mortem and police inquiry confirmed that he suffered fatal injuries due to an accidental fall.
The appellants filed a claim under Section 124A of the Railways Act. The Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the claim, holding that no ticket was found and hence the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The Tribunal relied upon a delayed DRM report alleging forgery of the identity documents.
The appellants challenged the denial before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, submitting that the deceased held a valid Identity Card issued with a season pass and that a co-passenger had witnessed the incident. They relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Union of India v. Rina Devi, which held that the absence of a ticket is not fatal if other evidence shows bona fide travel.
Court’s Observation
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, upon hearing the matter, held that the Tribunal’s finding was unsustainable. Relying on the Apex Court’s ruling in Rina Devi, the Court stated that once the claimant files supporting material, the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove bona fide travel. The Railways, the Court noted, had failed to produce evidence that the deceased did not have a valid season ticket corresponding to the Identity Card.
The Court also noted serious deficiencies in the DRM enquiry. Though the Untoward Incident occurred in 2006, the Court found that the report was submitted after twelve months, contrary to Rule 6(2) of the Railways (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2020, which requires submission of the inquiry report within 60 days. The Court relied on Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. General Manager, SECR and Bhola v. Union of India to hold that belated and unsupported inquiries cannot defeat legitimate claims.
Furthermore, while stating that the Railways’ duty goes beyond merely running trains, the Bench observed that “the Railways being a public utility service and an instrumentality of the State, owe a statutory and constitutional duty to ensure the safety and security of passengers traveling on its network”. This duty, the Bench observed, “extends not only to operational efficiency but also to the effective implementation of regulatory measures, including preventing unauthorized and ticketless travel.”
Stressing that the failure of railway authorities to monitor and control the boarding of ticketless passengers constitutes a serious lapse in their duty of care and vigilance, thereby endangering the life and safety of lawful passengers, the Bench held that “the sanctity of a ticketed journey must be upheld by strict enforcement of access controls and regular monitoring”, and that, “any omission in this regard cannot be condoned, especially when it results in loss of innocent life.”
Observing that the Railways is obligated under Sections 123(c) and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, to ensure the safety of passengers and to compensate for untoward incidents, including accidental deaths, where negligence or breach of statutory duty is established, the Bench concluded that “this Court finds merit in granting compensation to the claimants, recognizing the deceased as bona fide passenger and Railway's failure in discharge of its duty to ensure a safe travel environment by preventing the boarding and presence of ticketless passengers on train.”
Conclusion
Having held the deceased to be a bona fide passenger and finding contributory negligence on the part of the Railways, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal’s order and directed payment of ₹8,00,000 as compensation within eight weeks.
Cause Title: Vijay Singh Gour & Others vs. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC JBP:52958)
Appearances
Appellants: Advocate Ratnakar Prasad Mishra
Respondent: Advocate Satyendra Kumar Patel