Signing you in

India NewsA bench of justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh made the observation while deciding a compensation claim arising from the death of a passenger who fell from a running train in 2015. The court also suggested that the Railways consider an “exponential increase” in manpower at stations and trains to ensure effective implementation of safety measures aimed at preventing overcrowding and accidental falls.

The judgment was delivered in an appeal filed by Lata, whose husband Chandrakant Thakkar died after falling from the Ahmedabad-Howrah Mail between Khandbada and Khatgaon while travelling from Raipur to Ahmedabad on November 28, 2015.

The Railway Claims Tribunal and the Madhya Pradesh High Court had denied compensation on the ground that the deceased could not be proved to be a bona fide passenger because his ticket was not recovered after the accident. The Supreme Court reversed both decisions, holding that the absence of the ticket was not fatal to the claim and awarded ₹8 lakh compensation to the widow.

“One aspect that caught our attention while perusing the manual and other related documents, was the use of the term ‘second class passenger’. While it is ostensibly linked to the expenditure incurred by the passenger to travel, we may suggest that the class connotation be attached to the coach and not to the passenger, in recognition of the history of class divisions in our country and the same being offensive to the spirit of the Constitution of India,” the court said.

The observation came after the bench reproduced several provisions of the Railway Commercial Manual, including those dealing with the accommodation of passengers, prevention of overcrowding, ticket checking and safety precautions before trains depart.

The court noted that the manuals repeatedly referred to “upper and lower class passengers” and “second class passengers”, language which, according to the bench, required reconsideration in a constitutional democracy committed to equality and dignity.

The judgment also focussed extensively on the problem of overcrowding in trains, which the bench described as a regular occurrence and “more often than not the reason for such unfortunate incidents”.

Referring to provisions of the Railway Commercial Manual, the court pointed out that guards, conductors, ticket collectors, station masters and travelling ticket examiners have been assigned specific responsibilities to prevent passengers from travelling on footboards, ensure doors are closed before trains start, distribute passengers evenly across compartments and report overcrowding.

The bench observed that while the Railways had laid down elaborate guidelines, “the forethought is clearly visible, but the execution leaves much to be desired.”

Acknowledging the practical difficulties in implementing some of these measures, the court said effective enforcement would require a significant increase in personnel.

“It would require an exponential increase in the manpower that serves the Railway stations and the trains. While we are in the era of modernisation, we may suggest that it may be only felicitous both for the Organisation and the country as a whole if the youth of today are employed by the Organisation, not only giving them a stable source of livelihood but also preserving human lives,” the bench observed.

The court added that such an increase in manpower could help ensure better ticket checking, crowd management and passenger safety, thereby reducing the risk of deaths caused by overcrowding and accidental falls from trains.

According to the judgment, Chandrakant Thakkar was travelling from Raipur to Ahmedabad for business purposes in November 2015 when he fell from the running train and died instantaneously due to injuries.

His wife filed a claim under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, seeking compensation on the ground that the accident was an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. She stated that her husband had purchased a valid ticket, but it was kept in a travel bag that went missing after the accident.

The Railway Claims Tribunal accepted that the incident qualified as an “untoward incident” but rejected the claim because the ticket was not recovered. The Madhya Pradesh high court affirmed the decision, citing inconsistencies regarding the date of travel and the absence of the ticket.

The Supreme Court held that both courts had erred in adopting a technical approach. Relying on its earlier decisions, the bench reiterated that “mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger.”

The court held that the widow had discharged the initial burden by filing an affidavit stating that her husband had purchased a ticket and that it was lost along with his travel bag. Since there was no dispute that the deceased was travelling on the train and had died in an untoward incident, the Railways was liable to pay compensation.

Setting aside the orders of the tribunal and the high court, the bench directed the Union of India to pay ₹8 lakh compensation to the appellant within four weeks, failing which the amount would carry 8% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition.