Madhya Pradesh High Court On Equal Safety Standards For General Coach Passengers

It is definitely most pragmatic and so also absolutely in the fitness of things that the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Raju Dhurvey v. Union of India in Misc. Appeal No.648 of 2017 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:MPHC-JBP:57577 that was pronounced as recently as on November 10, 2025 has underscored most unequivocally that passengers travelling in general coach are entitled to the same safety standards as the ones in premium class. It must be noted that the Jabalpur High Court was considering an appeal against rejection of claim by Railway Claims Tribunal. Truth be told, the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Shri Justice Himanshu Joshi minced absolutely just no words to hold most unambiguously that:

This Court is constrained to observe that the Railway Administration must equally recognize and protect the life and dignity of passengers travelling in the General Class, just as it does for those travelling in higher classes of premium trains. The value of human life does not vary with the category of ticket purchased. Every passenger, irrespective of class, is entitled to the same standard, care and vigilance from the Railways.

The appeal of the claimant was thus allowed. Very rightly so!

Case Background

Filing Of The Appeal

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Shri Justice Himanshu Joshi of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:

The instant appeal has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved with the order dated 18.01.2017 passed in Case No.OA/IIu/BPL/2012/0468 by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, whereby his claim has been rejected.

 Facts Of The Case

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating on the facts of the case stating that:

The concise account of the case are that on 01.06.2012, the appellant along with his family members was travelling by Dakshin Express from Amla to Bhopal possessing valid journey ticket. The coach in which they were travelling, was over crowded with passengers. When the train arrived at Habibganj Station, due to pressure of passengers from behind, he fell down from the train and came under the wheels of train, as a result of which, both his legs got amputated above knee.

Tribunal’s View

As we see, the Bench discloses in para 3 observing that:

The claimant had filed a claim petition seeking compensation which has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal citing the reason that the appellant deliberately attempted to get down from moving train by compromising his own safety at a place other than platform which tantamounts to his own criminal act and cannot be considered as accidental fall.

Arguments Before The Court

Appellant’s Submissions

On the one hand, the Bench points out in para 4 that:

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Tribunal erred in not considering the fact that the appellant was a bona fide passenger holding valid journey ticket and was subjected to untoward accident in which both his legs got amputated. The learned Tribunal has wrongly came to the conclusion that the claimant had committed criminal act by trying to get down from the moving train whereas it has been established by the claimant that he fell down from moving train on account of pressure of over crowded passengers. He prays for allowing the appeal.

Railways’ Submissions

On the other hand, the Bench then also reveals in para 5 mentioning that:

On the other side, learned counsel for the railways has supported the impugned order submitting that no interference by this Court is required as the learned Tribunal has considered each and every aspect minutely. He prays for dismissal of appeal.

Court’s Analysis

No Dispute On Ticket And Injury

As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 7 after hearing and perusing the record as stated in para 6 that:

The impugned order shows that there is no dispute regarding the appellant being boarded on the train having valid ticket and sustaining injuries on account of falling from running train. The only dispute is in relation to the fact that the learned Tribunal has found that the appellant attempted to get down from the moving train before reaching to the platform to take the short cut for reaching to his home and the said act of appellant would fall under criminal act.

Version Of The Claimant

Truth be told, the Bench then lays bare in para 8 revealing that:

The claim of appellant was that he was travelling from Amla to Bhopal in general coach and while reaching to Habibganj Railway Station, he fell down from the moving train being pushed by the crowd.

Defence Rejected

It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 9 that:

Having considered the rival submissions and the material on record, this Court finds no merit in the defence raised by the Railway Administration that the injured-claimant is not entitled to compensation merely because he was standing near the gate of the coach and attempted to alight when the train was approaching the platform. The explanation of Railways is wholly unsatisfactory and deserves strong rebuke.

Systemic Flaws In Railway Design

Most rationally, the Bench then hastens to add in para 10 pointing out that, Besides the other drawbacks of Railways as observed by this Court recently, another flaw of Railway is that in long-distance trains, the two gates of each coach serve as common points for both entry and exit. There is no prescribed separate gate for boarding or de-boarding. In a normal train, there is no announcement for intimating the passengers about the side of platform in which the train is going to be halted.

The Railway itself has permitted, by long-standing design and practice, a situation where passengers naturally rush towards the door area well before the train halts, especially at busy stations where the fear of congestion, crowd pressure and pushing is real. In such circumstances, a passenger moving towards the gate in advance, with the genuine compulsion of ensuring a safe and timely exit, cannot be branded as negligent. On the contrary, it is the responsibility of the Railways to ensure regulated boarding and de-boarding to prevent overcrowding at the gates, to maintain proper announcement and provide safe conditions inside the coach.

Cornerstone Observation On Equality Of Safety

Most commendably, most significantly and so also most forthrightly, the Bench encapsulates in para 11 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that:

This Court is constrained to observe that the Railway Administration must equally recognize and protect the life and dignity of passengers travelling in the General Class, just as it does for those travelling in higher classes of premium trains. The value of human life does not vary with the category of ticket purchased. Every passenger, irrespective of class, is entitled to the same standard of safety, care and vigilance from the Railways.

Negligence Plea Rejected And Liability Fixed

Most forthrightly, it would be worthwhile to note that the Bench then hastens to add in para 12 noting that:

The plea of ‘own negligence’ or ‘criminal act’ raised by the Railways, without demonstrating any breach of statutory duty or misconduct on the part of the passenger, is wholly untenable. The claimant did not jump from a moving train nor did he was engaged in any prohibited act. He merely positioned himself at the gate, which is an unavoidable conduct for any ordinary passenger intending to de-board at a busy station. The failure of the Railway Administration to ensure safe ingress and egress, coupled with absence of safeguards to prevent overcrowding near the gates, amounts to gross deficiency in service. The grievous injury suffered by the claimant leading to amputation of both his legs is a direct consequence of such systemic failure. Therefore, the Railways cannot evade statutory liability under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, by shifting the burden onto the victim. The claimant is entitled for full statutory compensation along with interest.

Final Order

Remand For Determination Of Compensation

Finally and resultantly, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 13 that:

With the above analysis, the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, for awarding compensation to the claimant as per prevailing schedule and guidelines at the relevant point of time, in accordance with law.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, we thus see that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Shri Justice Himanshu Joshi of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in this leading case has made it indubitably clear that general coach passengers are entitled to similar safety standards as premium ones. It was also made crystal clear by the Jabalpur High Court that the failure of the Railway Administration to ensure safe ingress and egress, coupled with absence of safeguards to prevent overcrowding near the gates, amounts to gross deficiency in service as pointed out so very lucidly in para 12 of this robust judgment.

It was also clearly pointed out as mentioned in para 12 that the grievous injury that was suffered by the claimant leading to amputation of both his legs is a direct consequence of such systemic failure. So it was thus held by the Bench in this same para 12 that therefore, the Railways cannot evade statutory liability under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, by shifting the burden onto the victim. We thus see that the claimant was held entitled to full statutory compensation along with interest also as held so very rightly again in para 12. No denying or disputing it!