The injured victims
and representatives of the deceased in Mumbai's Wellington bridge stampede in
September 2017 got compensation, subject to a maximum of 8 lacs, as per the
scales provided under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. The Railway
Administration got a shot on its arm by praises from the press and the public
in its stand not to contest the claims before the Tribunal. The Tribunal at
Mumbai did a quick work at it awarding compensation of 8 lacs to next of kin of
dead victims and lesser sums to persons injured, all in a day’s sitting. The
status of victims as passengers was assumed, particularly in view of the fact
that the bridge was exclusive for train commuters connecting the Parle Central
Railway platform and West Wellington Railway platform to the flower market
nearby. In all this, it was made to appear that the Railways did a charitable
act of leaving the decision- making to the Claims Tribunal without at the same
time admitting liability. The assumption
is wrong, for, what the Railways did was a recognition of what is understood as
strict liability and it could have done
nothing less.
The Railways Act
makes its administration liable for any accident or untoward incident whether
or not there is fault or negligence on the part of the Railways for death or
injury suffered by a passenger. The term ‘passenger’ in the Railways Act means
a person who enters or exits the railway premises either with a platform ticket
or a ticket or pass that gives lawful authority to travel. A railway staff is
also included in this term. The ‘accident’ so called arises when a train
collides with another or derails causing injury or death. An ‘untoward
incident’ that makes the railways liable for injury and death when a there is a
violent attack or terrorist act, robbery, rioting, shoot out, arson or a fall
from the train. The exceptions are when the death or injury is suicide or an
attempt, result of self infliction, his own criminal act, insanity or
inebriation or due to ill health not
arising out of injury caused in an untoward incident.
The term, untoward
incident, has been interpreted purposively by Courts to aid injured victims or
representatives of the deceased claimants who fall from the train while
boarding and de-boarding and even when the acts are rash or negligent. In Anil Kumar Gupta v Union of India (2016), persons
who had arrived in New Delhi for
attending to open recruitment drive by ITBP and returning home arrived at the
railways station and climbed on roof tops of railway coaches but met with
serious injuries and death when they were hit by bottom of over bridge below
which train was speeding through. The Supreme Court did not make much of the the fact that the
passengers were getting on roof tops in spite of the Station Master and the
guard warning them against such a dangerous mode of travel and the loco pilot showing his initial remonstrations by
not chugging off and refusing to roll out. The train started on the insistence
of the motley crowd atop the train but the SC found the railways ought to have
been aware of inherent danger in allowing train to run with such speed having
large number of persons travelling on roof top and awarded compensation to the victims. Terrorist attacks that were
carried out on 26th November 2008 at Mumbai were also at Churchgate railway
station and the silver lining in the otherwise macabre incident was quick
adjudication by the Claims Tribunal that yielded to award of compensation of
amount as prescribed by law which was at that time Rs 4 lacs at the maximum,
apart from ex gratia sums released both by the Central and the State
governments?
Stampedes ought to
be seen as falling within the genre of untoward incidents and have indeed been
held to leave a trail of liability under tort law by several High Courts.
In Rakhee
Sharma v State of MP (2014) and Sunil Kumar Singh v State of Bihar (2013)
the High Courts were making the State liable for compensation to instances of
stampede and the resultant deaths and injuries occurring in temple festivals.
Even the fire and stampede deaths in Upahar
film tragedy, all the courts made the licensing authority also liable
for compensation, proportional to the extent of culpability as determined by
them, apart from making the theatre owner liable. In
Dhabwali fire and stampede tragedy, the local authority was made liable
for compensation for its failure to protect the victims even while directing
the school authorities who had organised the meeting to pay a larger slice of
the compensation amounts. In two instances occurring at Delhi, there have been
decisions of the Railways Claims Tribunal (Principal Bench) (Jagat Ray and another v Union of India OA
11/2005 dated 22.2.2008; Rajeswar Prasad and
another v Union OA13/2005 dated 22.8.2006) making the Railways liable,
rejecting the defence of Railway administration of non-liability. The decisions
have held that an inevitable force that one passenger exerts on the other in
stamped situations ought to be taken as "violence" that falls within
the definition of "untoward incident".
God forbid, If there
were to be another stampede at the platform or foot over bridge at the Railway
Station , it shall not again become a subject of dispute by the Railway
administration and the victims shall be paid compensation as legal obligation
of the Railways and not as a gratuitous
response to the supplications from various quarters.
Comments