Railways Liable Even For Deaths Caused While Unauthorizedly Crossing Tracks If It Failed To Implement Preventive Measures: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday (November 10) held that the Railways is liable to pay compensation even in deaths caused while unauthorized track crossing, if the Railways had failed to implement sufficient measures to prevent such unauthorized access to tracks.

In the present case, the bench noted that the deceased Rajesh, who was 3 years old, came onto the Railway tracks and to save him, two females also came onto the track and all three were run over by the train.

The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed; 

"Where passengers cross tracks due to absence of sufficient preventive measures like fencing, barricades, announcements, or security by the Railways to restrict the passenger from crossing the railway lines, particularly on the platforms and the railway has failed to provide or maintain effective preventive measures, in the opinion of this Court, the administration cannot escape from liability on the ground that the victim crossed unauthorizedly".

The incident occurred in April 2011, when a group of 8-10 people were returning from the child's tonsure ceremony in Maihar. The group allegedly boarded the train no 51672 Satna-Itarsi Passenger, which was overcrowded, leading to the death of the victims Loli Bai, Indramati and Rajesh, who fell from the train and were run over by another passing train.

However, the Railway, through a written statement, denied the accident, stating that the deceased persons were crossing the railway lines when they were hit by a passing through train. This written statement was also supported by the D.R.M. report.

The Railway Claims Tribunal held that the Railway was not liable to pay compensation as the deceased persons had not boarded the train and that the claimants had failed to prove the accident to be an untoward accident as defined under Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act. 

For Context, Section 123(c) of the Railways Act defines 'untoward accident', 

“(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section (3) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or
(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or
(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or
(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.

The High Court observed that Railways sufficiently proved that the deceased persons had not boarded the train no 51672 as the same had not passed through the Maihar Station on the date of the accident. It was also observed that the deceased persons had died by being run over by train no 19051 while crossing the railway lines. 

It however held that they are still entitled to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, even if the deceased persons were crossing railway tracks unauthorizedly to reach to another platform, if it could be established that the death occurred due to an “untoward incident” and that the railway administration failed in its statutory duty to ensure safety by preventing unauthorized access to the tracks. 

The court further clarified that contributory negligence or unauthorized entry alone does not automatically absolve the Railways of its liability unless the case falls within the exceptions, including suicide, self-inflicted injury, own criminal act, intoxication, or natural cause.

The court noted that the aforementioned statement was sufficient to presume that the act of the deceased persons was not deliberate but an action to save the child who had np knowledge about the consequences of crossing the track. 

"this Court finds that the Railway has failed to prove that they have taken each and every preventive measure to restrict the persons from crossing the railway lines and, therefore, failure to take such preventive measures amounts to negligence or breach of statutory duty, and supports the finding that the death occurred due to an “untoward incident” under Section 124-A even if the person crossed the tracks; if crossing is accessible or easy even for a three years child, it implies a systemic failure of the railway to restrict access", the bench observed. 

The court therefore set aside the Tribunal's order and allowed the appeals. 

Case Title: Ramaavatar v Union of India [MA-655-2017]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 242

For Appellants: Advocate Vinayak Shah 

For Respondent no 1: Advocates Ashish Agarwal, Ranjan Agnihotri, O.P. Agnihotri and Dhananjay Kumar Mishra

Click here to read/download the Order