Chhattisgarh High Court: In a suo motu writ petition registered regarding electrocution of a contract worker while repairing a leakage in an AC coach at the Railway Coaching Depot, Bilaspur, the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., and Bibhu Datta Guru, J., stated that at this stage, the primary concern was to provide all the necessary medical assistance to the victim, who was fighting for his life in the hospital, and the financial burden should not come in the way of getting him the best possible treatment. Accordingly, the Court directed the General Manager (‘GM’) of the South East Central Railway (‘SECR’), Bilaspur, to file an affidavit in this regard.
Background
The present suo moto public interest litigation petition was registered based on a news item published in Dainik Bhaskar, Bilaspur, on 27-08-2025. The report mentioned a tragic case of a young man, who sustained 70 per cent burns after coming into contact with the Overhead Equipment while repairing a leakage in an AC coach at the Railway Coaching Depot, Bilaspur. His condition was critical, and he was undergoing treatment at Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. The victim’s family was unable to bear the mounting medical expenses, and they were being made to run between the Divisional Railway Manager’s (‘DRM’) Office and the Coaching Depot in search of help. As per the report, the Railway officials attempted to distance themselves from responsibility, claiming that there was no provision for compensation or medical assistance for contract workers, and directed the contractor to bear the entire cost.
Analysis
Noting the Union’s plea for some time to respond, the Court opined that such a plea reflected a lack of seriousness on the part of the Railways, particularly when the victim was admitted to hospital and struggling for his life. Accordingly, the Court directed the GM and the DRM of the SECR to appear before the Court at 12:30 PM.
In compliance with the above order, the DRM and GM appeared through video conferencing.
Upon being asked whether the Railways had taken the responsibility of treatment of the victim, the GM informed the Court that the victim was not the employee of the Railways but was the employee of the contractor. Furthermore, the victim had unauthorisedly climbed the coach and got electrocuted, for which the Railway was not responsible. The GM also stated that there had been a meeting of the Railway authorities with the contractor and the family members of the victim, and they were figuring out how the victim could be given financial aid.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court stated that at this stage, the primary concern was to provide all the necessary medical assistance to the victim who was fighting for his life in the Hospital, and the financial burden should not come in the way of getting him the best possible treatment.
Accordingly, the Court directed the GM to file an affidavit within three days to inform the Court as to what sort of financial assistance the Railway or the contractor proposed to provide or had provided to the victim, and clarify who was responsible for such an act of negligence where a person came into contact with a live wire. If the fault was of the contractor, then what action had been taken by the Railways against him.
Thus, the Court listed the matter for 02-09-2025 while directing the physical appearance of the contractor.
[Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 8554, decided on 28-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the respondent: Deputy Solicitor General Ramakant Mishra, Advocates Bhupendra Pandey and Shweta Rai
