Khushi Doshi
Published on: April 27, 2022 at 18:32 IST
The Bombay High Court has ruled that local trains are the lifeblood of Mumbai, and that if a passenger falls and is injured while attempting to board an overloaded train, it will be considered an ‘untoward incident’ for which the Railways will be held liable.
Justice Bharati Dangre’s Single Bench ordered the Western Railways to pay Rs. 3 Lakhs to a 75-year-old man who suffered leg injuries after falling off an overcrowded local train.
A copy of the April 12 order was made accessible.
The Western Railways contended that the Case did not fit under the Provisions of Section 124(A) of the Railways Act, which provides that in the event of an adverse incident, compensation must be provided. It stated that Nitin Hundiwala, the Petitioner, attempted to board a moving train.
However, Justice Dangre rejected the Railways’ position, stating that the current event definitely fell under the definition of ‘untoward incident’ as defined by section 124(A) of the Act.
“If in daily chores, a passenger attempts to gain entry into an overcrowded train and is pushed by other passengers, resulting in his or her fall, then there is no reason why such an incident cannot fall within the ambit of an untoward incident,” the Order said.
Local trains in Mumbai are commonly referred to as the city’s ‘life line’, with a large number of residents relying on them to commute to work and other locations at some point, according to the Court.
The purpose of section 124(A) of the Railways Act, according to the Judgement, was to provide a prompt redress to an injured passenger or the dependents of a Deceased passenger involved in an adverse incident.
According to Justice Dangre, this Provision of the Act cannot be construed to deny Compensation to someone who acts callously or imprudently on occasion.
After accepting the Western Railways’ Argument that Hundiwala attempted to board a moving train, which was an unwise and criminal move on his part, the Railways Tribunal dismissed his claim, ruling that the incident could not be classified as an unpleasant incident.