Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: In an appeal filed by a man who lost his legs after falling from a moving train due to overcrowding against the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal (“RCT”), whereby his compensation claim was rejected, the Single Judge Bench of Himanshu Joshi, J., allowed the appeal, holding that the grievous injury suffered by the appellant leading to the amputation of both of his legs was a direct consequence of the systemic failure of the Railways in ensuring safe ingress and egress, coupled with absence of safeguards to prevent overcrowding near the gates.
Background
In 2012, 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 from passengers behind, the appellant fell from the train and came under the wheels of the train, and consequently, both of his legs were amputated above the knee.
The appellant had filed a claim seeking compensation, which was dismissed by the RCT, holding that the appellant deliberately attempted to get down from a moving train at a place other than the platform, thereby compromising his own safety. Thus, his action was a criminal act and could not be considered an accidental fall.
Analysis and Decision
At the outset, the Court stated that undisputedly, the appellant had boarded the train with a valid ticket and sustained injuries due to falling from the moving train.
Considering the rival submissions and the material on record, the Court stated that there was no merit in the Railway Administration’s contention that the appellant was not entitled to compensation merely because he was standing near the gate of the coach and attempted to board when the train was approaching the platform.
The Court remarked that, besides the other drawbacks of Railways, another flaw was 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 to inform the passengers about the side of the platform on which the train will halt.
“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.”
Furthermore, the Court stated that it was the Railway’s responsibility to ensure regulated boarding and de-boarding to prevent overcrowding at the gates, maintain proper announcements, and provide safe conditions inside the coach.
“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 Court stated 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, was wholly untenable. The Court held that the appellant did not jump from a moving train nor did he engage 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 the absence of safeguards to prevent overcrowding near the gates, amounts to a gross deficiency in service.”
Thus, the Court held that the grievous injury suffered by the appellant, leading to the amputation of both of his legs, was a direct consequence of such systemic failure. Therefore, the Railways could not evade statutory liability under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, by shifting the burden onto the victim-appellant, and he was entitled to full statutory compensation along with interest.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to the RCT for awarding compensation to the appellant, per the prevailing schedule and guidelines, in accordance with the law.
[Raju Dhurvey v. Union of India, Misc. Appeal No. 648 of 2017, decided on 10-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the appellant: Shafiqullah along and Mohd. Riyaz
For the respondent: Ranajna Agnihotri and Om Prakash Agnihotri