HC: Passengers de-boarding moving train can’t get relief

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 20

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the Railways cannot be burdened with compensation for negligent acts of passengers who suffer injuries while getting off a moving train.

The ruling by Justice GS Sandhawalia came on an appeal filed by Hamant Kumar against the Union of India. He had challenged the Railways Claims Tribunal’s order rejecting his compensation claim for injuries sustained in an accident on January 15, 2010. His left arm was totally crushed and right arm fractured in the accident.

The claim was rejected on the grounds that the injuries were self-inflicted. The respondents further noticed that the appellant was without a ticket. It was, as such, held that he was not a bona fide passenger. The conclusion drawn was that the accident occurred on account of his negligence. As such, the Railway Administration was absolved of the liability to pay compensation.

The counsel for the respondent submitted that there could not be a premium for acts of own negligence. As such, the appellant was not entitled for the benefits claimed. He, on his own account, got off a moving train, which was not scheduled to have a stop at that particular station.

Referring to the case record, Justice Sandhawalia asserted that the appellant-claimant’s own case was that he had boarded Malwa Express from Panipat to Kurukshetra to see a fair on the eve of an eclipse. It was his case that the train did not stop at Kurukshetra and he tried to get down when it slowed down at the Doda Kheri railway station.

Justice Sandhawalia added that the facts showed that the appellant himself got off the moving train. It was obvious that he had tried to de-board at Kurukshetra, but could not do so for whatever reason. It was, in such circumstances that the accident occurred.

Justice Sandhawalia ruled the act of de-boarding a running train not having a stoppage at a particular station could not be described as accidental falling of a passenger. It was, rather, a voluntary act on the appellant’s part. He was well aware of the risks and consequences of such dangerous acts.

“The benefits are to be granted where a person falls accidentally and not gets off on his own account,” Justice Sandhawalia ruled while dismissing the appeal.