‘Rly cannot deny compensation citing negligence’

Setting aside the order, the court observed that even in case of an accident of hitting a lamppost, the Railways was bound to establish that there was an intention on the part of the passenger for self-inflicted injury

Slamming the railways for always attempting to take advantage of the carelessness and negligence of passengers to deny compensation, the Madras High Court held that the courts were bound to grant compensation in all cases, where mere negligence or carelessness alone was considered for denying compensation in defiance of the very purpose and object of the Railways Act.

Justice SM Subramaniam made the observation in a case where a passenger died after hitting a lamppost. The Railway Claims Tribunal had rejected compensation on the basis that the deceased was peeping his head outside the train coach. It was a voluntary act and therefore it was to be construed as negligence. Hence, his kin were not entitled for compensation, the tribunal held.

Setting aside the order, the court observed that even in case of an accident of hitting a lamppost, the Railways was bound to establish that there was an intention on the part of the passenger for self-inflicted injury. Mere carelessness or negligence was insufficient to decline compensation, the judge said.

“Undoubtedly, some passengers, on account of over-crowd, are peeping their heads outside the doors and windows. Thus, the passengers may not have any intention for any such infliction for injury and all the accidents occurred in a lamppost cannot be construed as self-inflicted injury,” Justice Subramaniam held while directing a compensation of Rs 8 lakh with accrued interest.

The court also pointed out the condition of EMU trains in metro cities. Most coaches did not have proper doors. The size of the entry and exit are wider and many passengers are traveling by standing near the entry point. When the entry point and the exit point are wider and a large number of passengers are traveling, especially during peak hours, they have no option but to travel by standing near the entry and exit, the court said.

“If such travel is construed as negligence or carelessness and the benefit of compensation is denied to those victims, this court is of an undoubted opinion that the very purpose and object of the welfare legislation would be defeated,” Justice Subramaniam held.