The Gujarat High Court upheld the dismissal of a claim petition filed by heirs of an auto-driver who died after being hit by a train while trying to cross unmanned railway crossing in the vehicle, observing that the accident was caused due to the driver's own negligence. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 293]

Justice J.C. Doshi observed that a joint reading of Section 161 (Punishment for negligently crossing unmanned level crossing) of the Railways Act and Section 131 (Duty of the driver to take certain precautions at unguarded railway level crossing) of the Motor Vehicles Act fastens a liability on the driver to take precaution at an unguarded railway crossing.

The court said that the provisions marshal the liability upon the person approaching to cross railway level crossing to take full precaution, particularly at an unguarded railway level crossing and to stop its vehicle, get down from the vehicle and to ensure that no train or trolley is approaching from either side before the railway track is crossed.

“In the present case, it indisputably is that the unmanned railway level crossing has been crossed by the deceased hurriedly, ignoring that the two other rickshaws, intend to cross railway track were stopped and were waiting for the railway train to pass. It comes on record through the evidence that deceased was frightened seeing the train up close, unfortunately the rickshaw stopped in the middle of the track and was dashed by running railway train...
In contrast, it is evident that the deceased was at peak of his negligence and in a hurry of getting more fare from the folk fair, impulsively, without following the Rules and provisions of law, ignoring two stopped rickshaws at the unmanned railway crossing, attempted to cross the railway level crossing and lost his life in an unfortunate and tragic incident," the court said.

Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Union of India vs United India Insurance Company Limited (1997), the Court noted, “It has been observed by the Supreme Court that the railway has no statutory duty under clause (c) and (d) of the Section 13 to erect gates, chains, bars etc., or to employ person to open and shut the gates, chains, bars unless Central Government, by requisition, requires the railway to do so.”

The Court observed that the Railways also bear a common law liability, however such liability cannot be fastened onto the Railways in the absence of any proven inaction or non-performance of statutory or mandatory duty.

The case arose from an accident that took place on August 27, 2003, when the deceased, Bachubhai Dabhi, was riding an auto-rickshaw carrying passengers. While attempting to cross the unmanned railway level crossing on the Morbi-Rafaleshwar (Makansar) road, his vehicle was struck by train. The auto-rickshaw was dragged along the tracks, resulting in the death of the driver. An FIR was subsequently registered against the deceased himself, and an abated summary was filed.

Later, the wife and children of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), seeking compensation from the auto-rickshaw owner and the Union of India (Railway Administration). On August 25, 2009, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, holding the deceased solely negligent and finding no liability on the Railways or the vehicle owner. Aggrieved by this, the claimants approached the High Court.

The court noted, “It is true that it was an unmanned railway crossing, but simultaneously it also appears that the sign board was kept… What further appears from evidence that the train having left the railway station, the loco pilot of it was continuously blowing the horn and it was in force till the accident took place. The loco pilot and co-loco pilot of the train involved in the road incident have been examined and nothing fruitful comes on record, which specifies omission on the part of the Railway to perform the duty enshrined by the statute".

The court said that the Tribunal had rightly dismissed the claim plea due to the "self-negligence of the deceased".

Accordingly, the High Court upheld the MACT order dismissing the claims petition.