Bombay High Court Rules Standing Near Train Door During Peak Hours Is Not Negligence

The Bombay High Court has rejected the Railways' contention that standing near train doors during rush hour constitutes negligence.

Mumbai:

The Bombay High Court has ruled that commuters who travel in suburban trains during peak hours have no alternative but to stand near the doors due to overcrowding, and this behavior cannot be classified as negligent. This significant judgment came while upholding compensation granted to the family of a man who died in a railway accident.

Justice Jitendra Jain, in his Monday ruling, dismissed the Railway authority's argument that the victim was responsible for the accident by standing on the footboard near the train door.

The Union government had challenged the Railway Claims Tribunal's December 2009 decision awarding compensation to the deceased's family by filing an appeal in the high court.

The incident occurred on October 28, 2005, when the man fell from a train while traveling from Bhayendar to Marine Lines on Western Railway. He succumbed to his injuries days later.

In rejecting the Railways' negligence claim, the bench observed that Virar-Churchgate trains are notoriously crowded, particularly during morning rush hours, making it extremely difficult for passengers to enter compartments at stations like Bhayendar.

"This crowding situation persists even today; therefore, claiming passenger negligence for standing near doors cannot be accepted. When someone must travel for work and cannot enter the compartment due to overcrowding, they have no choice but to risk standing near the door," the court stated.

The judgment emphasized that the court cannot ignore this everyday reality faced by Mumbai's commuters.

Additionally, the bench pointed out that no legal provision states that accidents involving passengers standing near doors due to overcrowding would be excluded from the definition of an "untoward incident."

The Railways had also argued that the victim wasn't a legitimate passenger since no ticket or pass was found on his body when the accident occurred.

However, the court noted that the man's wife had submitted his local train pass along with identification to the tribunal, establishing that he was indeed a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident.

"The authenticity of the local pass has been proven. There could be various reasons why the deceased may have forgotten his pass at home on the day of the accident, but that doesn't disqualify the dependants from receiving compensation," the court determined.

Finding no flaw in the tribunal's compensation award to the victim's family, the court dismissed the Railways' appeal.