'Standing Near Local Train Door Not Negligence,' Says Bombay HC, Orders ₹4 Lakh Compensation In Mumbai Train Fall Death Case

Mumbai, April 4: In a significant ruling on commuter safety, the Bombay High Court has held that standing near the door of a Mumbai local train cannot be treated as negligence, given the realities of overcrowding, and termed a man’s death after falling from a moving train as an “untoward incident” entitling his family to compensation.

High Court overturns tribunal decision

Justice Jitendra Jain, on April 2, allowed an appeal filed by Ashrappa Yellappa Bhandari and Satyamma Ashrappa Bhandari, challenging the Railway Claims Tribunal’s 2019 decision that had denied them compensation for the death of their kin, Balkrishna Bhandari.

Bhandari, a salesman, died on January 29, 2012, while travelling from Kalyan to Dombivli. He fell from a moving train between Thakurli and Dombivli stations. His family’s claim was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the incident did not qualify as an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989.

Court notes inconsistencies in official reports

The High Court, however, found inconsistencies in official reports. While some reports suggested that Bhandari was standing at the edge of the platform and was knocked down by a train, others stated that he fell from a moving train. Noting that there was no eyewitness to the incident, the court said it could not rely conclusively on any one version.

“I fail to understand how these authorities gave contradictory reports, moreso, when there is no eyewitness to the incident,” Justice Jain observed.

Benefit of doubt must favour victim

The court held that in cases involving welfare legislation and conflicting evidence, the benefit of doubt must go to the victim. “This Court has no option but to accept that the deceased died by falling down from a moving train, which constitutes ‘untoward incident’,” the judge said.

Ground realities of Mumbai local trains highlighted

Significantly, the court underscored the ground realities of Mumbai’s suburban rail network. “In Mumbai local, seldom are the seats vacant… even at starting point, people have to jump to occupy seat. Therefore, standing near the door cannot be treated as negligence,” the order noted.

Even if the version that Bhandari was standing near the platform edge were accepted, the court said, the incident would still qualify for compensation.

Safety concerns and need for civic awareness

The court also flagged safety gaps at railway platforms, pointing out that the yellow safety line is often faded and lacks clear communication of its purpose.

It suggested regular repainting and even the use of red markings to indicate danger zones. Authorities should also ensure announcements and enforcement to keep passengers behind safety lines, it said.

Calling for behavioural change, the court remarked, “There is a need to inculcate civic sense amongst ourselves like civic sense amongst Japanese people.”

Also Watch:

Compensation awarded to family

Allowing the appeal, the court directed the Railways to pay compensation of Rs 4 lakh with 6% annual interest from the date of the accident, subject to a cap of Rs 8 lakh, to be equally shared by the two claimants within 12 weeks.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/