Railway Compensation Can't Be Claimed For Death Of Passenger Hit By Another Train While Walking On Tracks: Kerala High Court

Justice S. Manu noted that the deceased was a passenger of Maveli Express whereas he was hit by another train, Antyodaya Express. Since he was hit by a train in which he was not a bona fide passenger, the strict liability would not be attracted, the judge reasoned. He took the view that since it is an offence to trespass on railway track, which the deceased had done, compensation cannot be granted.

“I am of the view that the principles of strict liability under Section 124A of the Railways Act cannot be applied to the facts of the instant case. There is no evidence to establish that the deceased fell down from Maveli Express. As noted above, the said train was not involved in the fatal accident leading to the death of the victim. He sustained injuries when he was hit by another train while walking on the railway track…I am of the view that no compensation was liable to be granted for the death of the father of the respondents, as trespass upon a railway track is an offence under the Railways Act,” the Court observed.

The Court was considering an appeal filed by the Union challenging the grant of compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs to the children of the deceased, the respondents herein, by the Railway Claims Tribunal.

The respondents had claimed before the Tribunal that their father boarded Maveli Express from Ernakulam to travel to Kannur but when the train reached Tirur, a station in between, he somehow fell down from the train and died due to the injuries suffered. According to them, he was a bona fide passenger since he had reserved berth in the train and therefore, they are entitled to compensation.

According to the Union, the deceased was walking along the side of the track when he was hit and therefore, his death was not caused by an untoward accident but that he was actually trespassing. It pointed out that the evidence of the loco pilot of Antyodaya Express, which hit the deceased, proves the same. It thus contended that the injuries sustained can only be considered as “self-inflicted”.

The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that railway cannot be absolved since strict liability is imposed under Section 124A of the Railways Act when the deceased is a bona fide passenger. It suggested that the deceased might have fell down from the train in which he was travelling in and while he was moving away from the place, the other train might have hit him.

After hearing the parties, the Court was of the view that the theory put forth by the respondents was highly probably since the deceased was an octogenarian, who would not have been in a position to walk alongside the track after a fall from the train. Therefore, it agreed that the deceased's presence in the railway track can only be considered as trespass.

Thus, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the compensation granted.

Case No: M.F.A.(RCT) No.1 of 2026

Case Title: Union of India v. Jose N.M. and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 378

Counsel for the appellant: Shyamdeep S. Shenoy

Counsel for the respondents: Divya B. Nair, T. Aby Jacob

Click to Read/Download Judgment