.jpg)
Death of a passenger while crossing the track, due to lack of footover bridge, pay 8 lakh to Warla, High Court orders Railways
In case of death due to a train while crossing the railway tracks, the heirs were not getting any compensation from the railways. On the contrary, a case was registered against those who crossed the railway line. But if a passenger dies while crossing the railway tracks due to lack of footover bridge, the High Court has recently ruled that he is entitled to compensation from the railways.
The Bombay High Court has recently ruled that if a train hits a passenger who has no option but to cross the railway tracks to exit the station due to the absence of a foot overbridge, he is injured or killed and can get compensation under the Railway Act. Sunita Manohar Gajbhiye had run against the Railways in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. Her husband Manohar Gajbhiye was killed in a train collision.
Justice Abhay Ahuja heard Sunita Gajbhiye's petition on October 10. At this time, he opined that if there is no foot over bridge in a railway station, if the passengers are crossing the railway tracks, then such a passenger cannot be called a negligent passenger. A person may have come from a village to a city by train for a job. He must be traveling with a valid railway ticket. But after reaching the railway station, in the absence of a foot overbridge, if he has to cross the railway track to exit the railway station, if he dies in a collision with the train, it cannot be said that there is any fault or deliberate negligence of the passenger.
The Court recorded the above opinion and set aside the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal. which stated that it was an offense for a passenger traveling with a valid ticket to use railway tracks.
While deciding on Sunita Gajbhiye's plea, the court said that the person who died due to an untoward incident was an honest passenger. Also, as the petitioners are the heirs and dependents of the deceased, they are entitled to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railway Act. The court said that the railway should pay compensation of eight lakh rupees to the heir. Meanwhile, deceased Manohar Gajbhiye had traveled from Gondia to Revral by passenger train. Manohar Gajbhiye was killed in a train collision while crossing the railway tracks. Other passengers were also injured in the train collision. Manohar Gajbhiye's widow Sunita, son had moved the court against the railways.
On February 6, 2019, a tribunal in Nagpur ruled that Manohar Gajbhiye's death was due to negligence and there was no fault of the railways. But Justice Ahuja overturned the verdict on 10 October 2022. Ahuja also referred to the definition of bonafide passenger in the Railway Act. It also ordered the South East Central Railway to pay Rs eight lakh to the Gajbhiye family within six weeks. Meanwhile, Gajabhiye family's counsel R.G. Bagul presented while Nirja Choubey argued from Railways.
In case of death due to a train while crossing the railway tracks, the heirs were not getting any compensation from the railways. On the contrary, a case was registered against those who crossed the railway line. But if a passenger dies while crossing the railway tracks due to lack of footover bridge, the High Court has recently ruled that he is entitled to compensation from the railways.
The Bombay High Court has recently ruled that if a train hits a passenger who has no option but to cross the railway tracks to exit the station due to the absence of a foot overbridge, he is injured or killed and can get compensation under the Railway Act. Sunita Manohar Gajbhiye had run against the Railways in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. Her husband Manohar Gajbhiye was killed in a train collision.
Justice Abhay Ahuja heard Sunita Gajbhiye's petition on October 10. At this time, he opined that if there is no foot over bridge in a railway station, if the passengers are crossing the railway tracks, then such a passenger cannot be called a negligent passenger. A person may have come from a village to a city by train for a job. He must be traveling with a valid railway ticket. But after reaching the railway station, in the absence of a foot overbridge, if he has to cross the railway track to exit the railway station, if he dies in a collision with the train, it cannot be said that there is any fault or deliberate negligence of the passenger.
The Court recorded the above opinion and set aside the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal. which stated that it was an offense for a passenger traveling with a valid ticket to use railway tracks.
While deciding on Sunita Gajbhiye's plea, the court said that the person who died due to an untoward incident was an honest passenger. Also, as the petitioners are the heirs and dependents of the deceased, they are entitled to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railway Act. The court said that the railway should pay compensation of eight lakh rupees to the heir. Meanwhile, deceased Manohar Gajbhiye had traveled from Gondia to Revral by passenger train. Manohar Gajbhiye was killed in a train collision while crossing the railway tracks. Other passengers were also injured in the train collision. Manohar Gajbhiye's widow Sunita, son had moved the court against the railways.
On February 6, 2019, a tribunal in Nagpur ruled that Manohar Gajbhiye's death was due to negligence and there was no fault of the railways. But Justice Ahuja overturned the verdict on 10 October 2022. Ahuja also referred to the definition of bonafide passenger in the Railway Act. It also ordered the South East Central Railway to pay Rs eight lakh to the Gajbhiye family within six weeks. Meanwhile, Gajabhiye family's counsel R.G. Bagul presented while Nirja Choubey argued from Railways.
The Bombay High Court has recently ruled that if a train hits a passenger who has no option but to cross the railway tracks to exit the station due to the absence of a foot overbridge, he is injured or killed and can get compensation under the Railway Act. Sunita Manohar Gajbhiye had run against the Railways in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. Her husband Manohar Gajbhiye was killed in a train collision.
Justice Abhay Ahuja heard Sunita Gajbhiye's petition on October 10. At this time, he opined that if there is no foot over bridge in a railway station, if the passengers are crossing the railway tracks, then such a passenger cannot be called a negligent passenger. A person may have come from a village to a city by train for a job. He must be traveling with a valid railway ticket. But after reaching the railway station, in the absence of a foot overbridge, if he has to cross the railway track to exit the railway station, if he dies in a collision with the train, it cannot be said that there is any fault or deliberate negligence of the passenger.
The Court recorded the above opinion and set aside the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal. which stated that it was an offense for a passenger traveling with a valid ticket to use railway tracks.
While deciding on Sunita Gajbhiye's plea, the court said that the person who died due to an untoward incident was an honest passenger. Also, as the petitioners are the heirs and dependents of the deceased, they are entitled to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railway Act. The court said that the railway should pay compensation of eight lakh rupees to the heir. Meanwhile, deceased Manohar Gajbhiye had traveled from Gondia to Revral by passenger train. Manohar Gajbhiye was killed in a train collision while crossing the railway tracks. Other passengers were also injured in the train collision. Manohar Gajbhiye's widow Sunita, son had moved the court against the railways.
On February 6, 2019, a tribunal in Nagpur ruled that Manohar Gajbhiye's death was due to negligence and there was no fault of the railways. But Justice Ahuja overturned the verdict on 10 October 2022. Ahuja also referred to the definition of bonafide passenger in the Railway Act. It also ordered the South East Central Railway to pay Rs eight lakh to the Gajbhiye family within six weeks. Meanwhile, Gajabhiye family's counsel R.G. Bagul presented while Nirja Choubey argued from Railways.
