The Madras Supreme Court stated that the railroad cannot refuse compensation to those who fall off overcrowded trains. – LexForti Legal News & Journal

In the recent case of Railways, fair and reasonable compensation cannot be denied to passengers who die or are injured because they had no choice but to stand near the entrance to the buses and face outside watch because the multiple electrical units are overcrowded (EMUs) operated without doors, the Madras High Court ruled. Madras HC took the view that compensation could only be refused if the passengers had intended to be injured or to commit suicide while on the train. However, if the accident had occurred due to negligence or negligence on the part of the passengers in overcrowded trains, the railway would be obliged to provide compensation on behalf of the passenger. The verdict came when compensation of £ 8 with 6% interest was ordered for the family on a daily stake whose head was smashed on a lamppost when he was in an EMU between Perungkalathur and Stations on April 28, 2015 Tambaram was on the way. The passenger was in possession of a valid monthly season ticket and was therefore a passenger in good faith.

The court also found that a passenger standing near the door would not expect an accident. The particular circumstances that exist in our great nation due to the large population must also be taken into account before any conclusion can be drawn as to the injuries caused. If an accident occurs near the door or while boarding a moving train, it cannot be considered a self-inflicted injury. The duties and responsibilities of railway officials should also be taken into account in determining their contributory negligence. Undoubtedly, passengers are expected to comply with the railroad rules. However, it may not be possible for passengers on the train to understand all of the rules and regulations that may not be available on every bus.

It is the duty of the officials to ensure that passengers scrupulously observe these rules. Railways have protective forces. The railway police are here. Various officers are employed on trains. If these officials fail to perform their duties and responsibilities to the extent expected to ensure that railroad regulations are scrupulously followed, then contributory negligence and negligence on the part of the railways must be remedied.

When the railway officials issue tickets that are beyond the capacity on unreserved buses, they certainly add to that negligence and negligence. In those circumstances, those facts and circumstances are relevant for the courts to reach a conclusion as to whether the injury or death was due to negligence and negligence or willful harm.

The court also found that a passenger standing near the door would not expect an accident. The particular circumstances that exist in our great nation due to the large population must also be taken into account before any conclusion can be drawn as to the injuries caused. If an accident occurs near the door or while boarding a moving train, it cannot be considered a self-inflicted injury. The duties and responsibilities of railway officials should also be taken into account in determining their contributory negligence. Undoubtedly, passengers are expected to comply with the railroad rules. However, it may not be possible for passengers on the train to understand all of the rules and regulations that may not be available on every bus.

It is the duty of the officials to ensure that passengers scrupulously observe these rules. Railways have protective forces. The railway police are here. Various officers are employed on trains. If these officials fail to perform their duties and responsibilities to the extent expected to ensure that railroad regulations are scrupulously followed, then contributory negligence and negligence on the part of the railways must be remedied.

When the railway officials issue tickets that are beyond the capacity on unreserved buses, they certainly add to that negligence and negligence. In those circumstances, those facts and circumstances are relevant for the courts to reach a conclusion as to whether the injury or death was due to negligence and negligence or willful harm.

Comments are closed.