Does a death in a stampede or unprecedented rush within the precincts of a railway station amount to an untoward incident under the Railways Act, 1989?

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed to set aside the judgement and order, dated 20.03.2025, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai, in OA.No.(II-U)71 of 2024.

The facts of the case are as follows:-

This Court heard Mr.K.K.Muraalitharan, the learned counsel for the Appellant, considered his submissions and also perused the entire materials placed on record.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the incident falls under Section 124A of the Railways Act and not under Section 123 of the Railways Act, inasmuch as the deceased fell down on the “foot over bridge” of the Guindy Railway Station, got injuries and subsequently died, however, the Tribunal has come to the erroneous conclusion that the incident is an accidental fall from the train and hence, the deceased met with an "untoward incident", due to an accidental fall from the train. The incident is not an "untoward incident", as defined under Section 123C(2) of the Railways Act, but, it comes under the ambit of Section 124A of the Railways Act and hence, the Appellant is not liable to pay any compensation, as the death was a natural death, as provided under Section 124A of the Railways Act and not on account of any accident in the Railway Premises.

Before going into the merits or otherwise of the case in detail, at the outset, it is appropriate to quote Sections 2(29), 123, 124A and 125 of the Railways Act, as under:-

Definitions:- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-

Article 38(1) of the Constitution of India reads as “State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people. (1) The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life.

The grounds raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant before this Court are that the incident is not an accidental fall from the train and he fell down on the steps of the “foot over bridge” of the Guindy Railway Station and hence, the incident is not an "untoward incident", as defined under Section 123C(2) of the Railways Act, but it comes under the exceptions or categories of the Proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, namely, clauses (a) to (e) and hence, the Appellant is not liable to pay any compensation, as the death was a natural death, as provided under Section 124A of the Railways Act.

The fact that the Respondents are the legal representatives and dependants of the deceased, the place of occurrence and the manner, in which the deceased died, are not denied by the Appellant. It is also not in dispute that the deceased died due to head injury sustained by him, when he fell down in the stampede or crowd, on the steps of the “foot over bridge”, which is within the precincts or premises of the Guindy Railway Station. It is also not denied by the Appellant that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.

In the impugned judgement, the Tribunal had found that as per Ex.A6, Monthly Season Ticket, the deceased was a bona fide passenger, as on the date of the incident, i.e. on 11.11.2023, as defined under Section 2(29) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act and that as per the DRM investigation report, filed by the Southern Railway, the deceased fell down in the middle of the “foot over bridge” of the Guindy Railway Station and fainted and he was taken to the Government Hospital, Saidapet, where he died.

The Tribunal had also found that as per Ex.A4, inquest report, the deceased had travelled in a train from Kancheepuram to Guindy and alighted at the Guindy Railway Station, at around, 09.35 hours on 11.11,2023 and that in order to go out of the Guindy Railway Station, he climbed on the foot over bridge, but due to heavy rush, he was pushed by the other passengers, who were on hurry and thus, he fell down and fainted and he died in the hospital, without responding to the treatment, due to the head injury. The Tribunal had also found that as per Ex.A5, the post-mortem report, the deceased died due to head injury, which was the cause of the death of the deceaseed.

The Tribunal, had also found from the evidence of RW.1 to RW.2 that the deceased fell down on the steps of the “foot over bridge” of the Guindy Railway Station and he sustained head injury and died in the hospital and it was an accidental death.

Thus, it is categorically seen from the findings of the Tribunal, which are based on the valid evidence that the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the date of the incident. However, the Tribunal had erroneously held that it was a death due to accidental falling of the deceased from the train, carrying passengers, which appears to be a clerical error, though it had given a finding, based on the evidence that the death of the deceased had occurred due to fell down on the steps of the “foot over bridge”, which is within the premises of the Railway Station or within the precincts of the Railway Station. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal, in so far as it relates to the place of occurrence and the manner of the death that the death had occurred due to fall from the train, cannot be sustained and accordingly, it is set aside. However, it is seen that actually, the incident had occurred on the foot steps of the “foot over bridge” of the Guindy Railway Station and the same was admitted by the Appellant/Railway Department.

Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the death was a natural death cannot be accepted, as stated above, as the deceased died due to head injury sustained by him, when he fell down on the steps of the “foot over bridge” of the Guindy Railway Station. The above contention is supported by the post-mortem report Ex.A5.

It is also not established by the learned counsel for the Appellant by letting in valid evidence that the deceased died due to any of the exceptions or categories of the Proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, namely, clauses (a) to (e), regarding cause of the death of the deceased, to deny the compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased. Even before this Court, the learned counsel for the Appellant is not able to point out any single piece of evidence to prove that the death of the deceased has come under the exceptions or categories of the Proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, namely, clauses (a) to (e).

Be that as it may. Now, in this case, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the death of the deceased, who died due to head injury sustained by him, when he fell down in the stampede or heavy unprecedented rush or crowd, on the steps of the “foot over bridge', would amount to an "untoward incident".

Constitutional Courts cannot brush aside the prevailing situations in our Country. It is well known that in the Railway Stations, passages and foot over bridges are provided in between one platform to another platform and also to reach the roads and further, moving foot steps / escalators are also provided for such ingress and egress for the Railway Stations. Through such passages, the passengers are allowed to cross for the purpose of reaching other platforms or the other roads.

In this case, there is no dispute about the issue relating to “bona fide passenger”. As stated above, at the time of occurrence, the deceased was a bona fide passenger, as found by the Tribunal, as per Ex.A6, Monthly Season Ticket. A valid Indian Railways suburban local train ticket (paper ticket, UTS ticket, season ticket or QR ticket), is not only valid for travelling in the train, but, also it is generally inclusive of travel fare from the origin station to the destination station and for the use of other amenities of the Railway Station, such as, waiting area, platform access, drinking water, toilets, foot over bridges, escalators and lifts, seating on platform, excluding paid amenities.

Thus, by virtue of a valid train ticket, a passenger is entitled to use all the amenities and facilities, within the premises of the Railway Station, except paid facilities. Therefore, when the Railway Administration allows a passenger to use all the amenities, within the premises or precincts of the Railway Station, by issuing a valid ticket for a particular price to a passenger, the Railway Administration is responsible and accountable for the smooth and safety movement of the passengers, within the premises or precincts of the Railway Station.

In the present case, at the Guindy Railway Station, number of constructions and improvement works have been going on, for the past several years and still some debris and garbage are dumped in some of the areas, inside and outside the precincts or premises of the Guindy Railway Station. The passengers are not able to move freely, even in the railway platforms and the foot over bridges, because of heavy crowd and obstacles. As the Guindy Suburban Railway Station, surrounded by the Metro Railway Station and the main Guindy Bus Depot, is the main hub for the main destinations of the Chennai City, the Guindy Railway Station is always filled with heavy crowd. That too, during Office Hours, it is very difficult and dangerous for the passengers even to walk slowly. These are the exact and real facts, prevailing as of now.

The Railway Authorities are completely responsible and accountable for effective control of the crowd and also for smooth and safety movement of the passengers within the precincts of the Railway Stations or Railway Premises. The complex nature of scenarios and situations prevailing in the Railway Stations throughout the country cannot be neglected by the Courts and the Courts cannot shut its eyes with reference to the truth as well as the circumstances. In case of any "untoward incident", blaming the passengers on the ground of negligence, can never be accepted by the Courts. In such circumstances, the Courts are bound to adopt the Doctrine of Liberal Interpretation, so as to ensure that the concept of social justice prevails and the livelihood of the dependants, who lost their near and dear and the breadwinner, are safe guarded.

To attract any of the exceptions or categories of the Proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, namely, clauses (a) to (e), it has to be decided, in each and every case and it would depend on the facts and circumstances of each and every case.

In this case, it is the case of the appellant that the death of the deceased was natural death, as defined under the exceptions or categories of the Proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, namely, clauses (a) to (e). In this case, the incident, in which the deceased died, is clearly covered by the main body of Section 124A of the Railways Act and not by its proviso. Section 124A of the Act lays down strict liability. As stated above, the appellant has miserably failed to prove by letting in valid evidence that the incident had occurred due to any of the reasons or exceptions, as mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the Proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act.

It is further observed by this Court that the Appellant/Railway Administration has admitted the fact that the death had occurred due to head injury, sustained by the deceased, as per the post-mortem report, Ex.A5, when the incident had occurred on the foot steps of the “foot over bridge”, of the Guindy Railway Station. Thus, as per Section 123(c)(1)(ii) of the Act, it is an “untoward incident”, due to violent attack made by the other passengers on the deceased due to heavy rush on the “foot over bridge”, with the intention to go first and cross the “foot over bridge”. Accordingly, the incident took place within the premises of the Guindy Railway Station or within the precincts of the Railway Station. Thus, in view of the above also, the Respondents are entitled for the compensation, as awarded by the Railway Claims Tribunal.

In 2008-4-MLJ-323-SC (Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijayakumar), the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to observe, as under:- “ 11. No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers”, the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence, in our opinion the latter of the abovementioned two interpretations i.e. the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred vide Kunal Singh v. Union of India [(2003) 4 SCC 524 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 482] (SCC para 9), B.D. Shetty v. Ceat Ltd. [(2002) 1 SCC 193 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 131] (SCC para 12) and Transport Corpn. of India v. ESI Corpn. [(2000) 1 SCC 332 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 121] 12. It is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made should be preferred. In other words, beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation vide Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. Workmen [AIR 1961 SC 647] (AIR para 7), Jeewanlal Ltd. v. Appellate Authority [(1984) 4 SCC 356 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 753 : AIR 1984 SC 1842] (AIR para 11), Lalappa Lingappa v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. [(1981) 2 SCC 238 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 316 : AIR 1981 SC 852] (AIR para 13), S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager [(2003) 4 SCC 27 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 380] (SCC para 12).” 13. In Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Ashok Vishnu Kate [(1995) 6 SCC 326 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1385] this Court observed: (SCC pp. 347- 48, paras 41-42) “41. In this connection, we may usefully turn to the decision of this Court in Workmen v. American Express International Banking Corpn. [(1985) 4 SCC 71 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 940] wherein Chinnappa Reddy, J. in para 4 of the Report has made the following observations: (SCC p. 76) ‘4. The principles of statutory construction are well settled. Words occurring in statutes of liberal import such as social welfare legislation and human rights’ legislation are not to be put in Procrustean beds or shrunk to Lilliputian dimensions. In construing these legislations the imposture of literal construction must be avoided and the prodigality of its misapplication must be recognised and reduced. Judges ought to be more concerned with the “colour”, the “content” and the “context” of such statutes (we have borrowed the words from Lord Wilberforce's opinion in Prenn v. Simmonds [(1971) 1 WLR 1381 : (1971) 3 All ER 237 (HL)] ). In the same opinion Lord Wilberforce pointed out that law is not to be left behind in some island of literal interpretation but is to enquire beyond the language, unisolated from the matrix of facts in which they are set; the law is not to be interpreted purely on internal linguistic considerations. In one of the cases cited before us, that is, Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court [(1980) 4 SCC 443 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 16] we had occasion to say: (SCC p. 447, para 6) “6. … Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of ‘bread and butter’ statutes. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions.” ' 42. Francis Bennion in his Statutory Interpretation, 2nd Edn., has dealt with the Functional Construction Rule in Part XV of his book. The nature of purposive construction is dealt with in Part XX at p. 659 thus: ‘A purposive construction of an enactment is one which gives effect to the legislative purpose by— (a) following the literal meaning of the enactment where that meaning is in accordance with the legislative purpose (in this Code called a purposive-and-literal construction), or (b) applying a strained meaning where the literal meaning is not in accordance with the legislative purpose (in the Code called a purposive-and-strained construction).’ At p. 661 of the same book, the author has considered the topic of ‘Purposive Construction’ in contrast with literal construction. The learned author has observed as under: ‘Contrast with literal construction.—Although the term “purposive construction” is not new, its entry into fashion betokens a swing by the appellate courts away from literal construction. Lord Diplock said in 1975 : “If one looks back to the actual decisions of the [House of Lords] on questions of statutory construction over the last 30 years one cannot fail to be struck by the evidence of a trend away from the purely literal towards the purposive construction of statutory provisions.” The matter was summed up by Lord Diplock in this way— … I am not reluctant to adopt a purposive construction where to apply the literal meaning of the legislative language used would lead to results which would clearly defeat the purposes of the Act. But in doing so the task on which a court of justice is engaged remains one of construction, even where this involves reading into the Act words which are not expressly included in it.’ ” (emphasis supplied) 14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers” in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there are crores of people who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford travelling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers” includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal interpretation should be given to the expression.”

The provisions for compensation under Sections 123, 124A and 125 of the Railways Act are beneficial legislations. When we say that the said provisions are part of welfare statute, then the Rules of interpretation mandate that the interpretation of the said provisions shall be made in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person, for whom the Act was made. The beneficial or a welfare statute should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation.

Under Article 38(1) of the Constitution of India, it is the duty of the State to function as a Welfare State and look after the welfare of all its Citizens. In various social welfare statutes, the principle of strict liability has been provided to give insurance to the people, against death and injuries, irrespective of fault. It is the duty of the State under our Constitution to function as a Welfare State and look after the welfare of the citizens. The legislature appears to have never intended that the term “untoward incident” to be a “hold all” to put in every incident, taking place during the journey of the train.

In 1998 SCC OnLine Cal 72:2001 ACJ 1279 (Shyamal Baran Saha Vs. State of West Bengal and others), the Calcutta High Court was pleased to observe that the State, having failed and neglected to take adequate measures to ensure safety, security and well being of the people, who had stood in the queue and the police arrangement being ineffective and inadequate, is liable for negligence for the breach of their lawful duties towards the Plaintiff.

In 2010 SCC OnLine Del 3851(Union of India Vs. Krishan Kumar Goel), the Delhi High Court was pleased to observe as under:- “6. The Ld. Judge while dealing with issue no. 1 has observed that the issue is covered threadbare by this very tribunal in OA 13/2005 whereby the tribunal has discussed at length the liability of the railway administration in the incident of death in a stampede. The observations are quoted for the sake of clarity:- “Hence in view of the decision of the Tribunal rendered in OA 13/2005 on 22.8.2006 and for the very same reasons, it is to be held that the death of the deceased, which has occurred in a stampede, amounts to an "untoward incident" and as such the railway administration is liable to pay compensation for the same.”

As stated above, admittedly, the Respondents herein are the legal representatives and dependants of the deceased and hence, there is no quarrel about their entitlement of compensation, as provided under Sections 123 and 125 of the Railways Act.

Apart from the principle of strict liability in Section 124A of the Railways Act and other statutes, we should develop the law of strict liability, dehors the statutory provisions. This Court is of the opinion that we have to develop new principles for fixing liability in cases, like the present case.

In view of the above said discussions and the observations and in the light of the decisions, referred to above, it is to be held that while the deceased was climbing on the foot steps of the “foot over bridge” of the Guindy Railway Station, because of heavy crowd and unprecedented rush, within the precincts and premises of the Guindy Railway Station, the deceased fell down and sustained head injury, due to which, he died subsequently. Thus, such death of the deceased, which has occurred in a stampede and unprecedented rush , amount to an "untoward incident” and as such, the Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation for the same, to the dependants of the deceased, who are the Respondents herein.

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgement and order, dated 20.03.2025, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai, in OA.No.(II-U)71 of 2024, is confirmed. The Respondents, who are the legal heirs/dependants of the deceased, are entitled to the compensation with accrued interest, as awarded and apportioned, by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, by the impugned judgement.

The impugned judgement and order, dated 20.03.2025, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai, in OA.No.(II-U)71 of 2024, may be complied with by the Appellant/Railway Department, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

There is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. The file is consigned to record.

The Registry of this Court is directed to send copies of this judgement and order to the Appellant as well as to the Respondents, forthwith. 21-09-2026