Inherent Duty To Give Adequate Warning To Public About Passing Of Train At Rail Crossing: Jharkhand High Court Orders ₹8 Lakh Compensation

The High Court was considering an appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissing the claim of the appellants.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held, “The High Court of Assam in the case of Swarnalata Barua v. Union of India and Others, reported in AIR 1963 Assam 117 wherein it is held that there is an obligation on the part of Railway Administration to ensure that whenever a train passes over a thoroughfare adequate warning should be given to the public about passing of the train at the time they pass, so that accident may be avoided. The said duty need not necessarily be a statutory duty. It is implied and inherent in the functions to be discharged by the Railway Administration in the matter of running their railways. It is not disputed that had the Railway Administration taken the precautionary measure either by putting a railway gate for keeping it closed at the time the train was due to pass or putting some other obstructions which could have prevented the public from passing over the level crossing that would be the information and notice to the public that the train will pass through the railway track, then accident of this kind that had happened in this case would not have occurred.”

Advocate Arvind Kr. Lall represented the Appellant while Advocate Chandra Prakash represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellants had preferred an application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act read with Rule 5 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 before the Railway Claims Tribunal. It was alleged that on January 26, 2014, while the deceased Akhileshwar Ram was crossing the Parhua rail crossing between Meral and Ramana Railway Station, the Jammu Tawi Express Train, without blowing a whistle, dashed the car in which Akhileshwar Ram was travelling, as a result of which Akhileshwar was crushed to death, and the car was badly damaged. It was further alleged that earlier rail gumti was duly constructed in the said crossing, but it was not functioning, and there was no railman to close the gate, nor was any signalman posted to control the persons crossing the rail line.

The Tribunal held that the case arose out of dashing of car at level crossing, the deceased was not travelling on any train and thus Section 124 and 124A of the Act was not attracted. According to the Tribunal, this was not an untoward train accident.

Reasoning

Referring to the provisions of the Act, the Bench explained, “If section 123 and 124-A of the Indian Railways Act are read conjointly for the purpose of interpretation is made taking into account the intention of the legislature to protect the passengers sustaining injuries in untoward incidents the term accidental fall from the train and the deceased crossing the railway gate where no hindrance was put by the railway and it is to be proved negligence on the part of the Railway as it is in violation of Section 18 of the said Act.”

The Bench held that an accident of such a nature could have been avoided if the Railway Administration had taken the precautionary measure either by putting a railway gate for keeping it closed at the time the train was due to pass or putting some other obstructions which could have prevented the public from passing over the level crossing.

Thus, the Bench disposed of the appeal by directing, “It is held that the appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) without any interest…”

Cause Title: Smt. Rita Devi v. The Union Of India (Neutral Citation: 2026:JHHC:29897)

Click here to read/download Order