General Coach Passengers Entitled To Same Safety Standards As Those Travelling In Premium Class: MP High Court To Railways

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has emphasized that every passenger, irrespective of the class in which they are travelling, is entitled to equal standards of safety, care and vigilance from the Railway Administration. 

In doing so, the bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi held the Railway liable for failing to ensure safe travelling conditions after a passenger lost both his legs due to falling from an overcrowded train. 

The bench observed;

"This Court is constrained to observe that the Railway Administration must equally recognize and protect the life and dignity of passengers travelling in the General Class, just as it does for those travelling in higher classes of premium trains. The value of human life does not vary with the category of ticket purchased. Every passenger, irrespective of class, is entitled to the same standard of safety, care and vigilance from the Railways". 

The case concerns an incident of June 1, 2012 when the appellant was travelling with his family on the Dakshin Express from Amla to Bhopal, possessing a valid journey ticket. Owing to severe overcrowding in their coach, the appellant was pushed from the moving train and came under the wheels, resulting in amputation of both legs above the knee. 

The appellant's claim for compensation was initially rejected by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal. The tribunal concluded that he attempted to get down from a moving train, thereby compromising his own safety.

Challenging this finding, the appellant argued that he fell due to crowd pressure and had not engaged in any criminal or negligent act.

Upon examining the record, the bench noted that there was no dispute regarding the appellant being a bona fide passenger or that he sustained injuries after falling from a running train. 

However, the court found no substance in Railway's defence that the appellant was trying to get down from a moving train, calling the explanation 'wholly unsatisfactory' and deserving of 'strong rebuke'. 

Highlighting systemic flaws in the management, the court observed that long-distance trains have no segregated entry and exit points, leading to natural congestion near coach doors. It further noted the absence of platform-side announcements and the lack of regulated passenger movement, factors that compel passengers to move towards the door area before a train halts. 

"In such circumstances, a passenger moving towards the gate in advance, with the genuine compulsion of ensuring a safe and timely exit, cannot be branded as negligent. On the contrary, it is the responsibility of the Railways to ensure regulated boarding and de-boarding to prevent overcrowding at the gates, to maintain proper announcement and provide safe conditions inside the coach", the bench observed. 

The court stressed that passengers travelling in general class must receive the same dignity and protection as those travelling in higher classes of premium trains. 

Rejecting the Railway's plea of 'own negligence' or 'criminal act', the court held that the claimant had neither jumped from the train nor engaged in any prohibited activity. Instead, his injury was a direct result of the systemic shortcomings of the Railways. 

The bench concluded that the Railway cannot avoid statutory liability under Section 124-A of the Railways Act by shifting the burden onto the victim. 

For context, Section 124-A of the Railways Act states the extent of liability in case of injury or death of any passenger in any untoward accident. 

Therefore, the bench allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal, directing it to award compensation in accordance with the prevailing schedule and guidelines. 

Case Title: Raju Dhurvey v Union [MA-648-2017]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 251

For Appellant: Advocates Shafiqullah and Mohd. Riyaz

For Respondent: Advocates Ranajna Agnihotri and Om Prakash Agnihotri

Click here to read/download the Order