The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the Indian Railways can be held liable in cases where people die while crossing railway tracks and where it has failed to implement adequate preventive measures. The Court observed that the Railways has a duty to ensure safe access and control of movement on and around tracks, and when fatalities occur due to lack of such preventive safeguards, liability may follow.
In the judgment, the Court noted that the factual background involved an incident where a person died after crossing tracks, purportedly because the Railways had not put in place sufficient physical barriers, signage, or supervised safe crossing arrangements. The Court emphasised that the state-run Railways is a public utility and must be held to a standard of care commensurate with the risk its operations pose. It held that if the Railways is aware of common track-crossing or trespass patterns and yet does not erect fences, gates, or provide alternative safe crossing facilities, it may be considered negligent.
The bench further held that the Railways’ duty arises not only when a person is a bona fide passenger but extends to any member of the public who is lawfully forced to cross tracks due to lack of safe infrastructure. The Court underscored that if track‐crossing becomes a routine by local residents to access another platform or to cross through the station area, the Railways must take anticipatory steps to prevent accidents—such as foot over-bridges, underpasses, fencing or proper surveillance. Where the Railways fails in these respects and a death occurs, a claim for compensation under relevant statutes may be sustainable.
The judgment noted that the common defence by the Railways—that pedestrians should not be on tracks and thus bear their own risk—does not absolve the Railways when it has permitted or ignored unsafe crossing behaviour and lacks preventive infrastructure. The Court said that merely pointing to the individual’s negligence does not relieve the Railways of its responsibility when it remains aware of, and does nothing about, recurring hazards. The bench directed that in future incident investigations the Railways must record whether safe crossing measures were in place, the frequency of track‐crossing by the public, and whether warnings or barriers existed.
In conclusion, the High Court’s ruling makes clear that in track crossing fatalities the Railways’ obligation to provide safety is active, not passive. The failure to anticipate risk and provide safe alternatives can transform what might be trespass or misadventure into a compensable incident. This approach reinforces the principle that infrastructure operators owe a duty of care to the public and must take realistic preventive action in high-risk locations.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.