Is the Railway Liable for a Passenger’s Death Caused by Overcrowding from Ticketless Travellers?

Railway travel in India, while affordable and widespread, often comes with the challenge of overcrowded compartments—especially in general or passenger trains. In such situations, genuine passengers frequently face safety hazards due to the uncontrolled boarding of ticketless travellers. A pertinent legal question arises in such cases: Can the Railways be held liable for the death of a bona fide passenger if overcrowding by ticketless persons leads to a fatal fall?

Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Vijay Singh Gour & Ors. v. Union of India (Misc. Appeal No. 3232 of 2011; decided on 17 October 2025) provides a significant judicial answer to this issue. The Court recognised the contributory negligence of the Railway Administration in failing to prevent ticketless overcrowding, holding it liable for the death of a valid passenger who fell due to excessive rush.

Factual Background

On 11 November 2006, Gurmeet Singh, son of the appellants Vijay Singh Gour and others, was travelling on a passenger train from Bhilai Power House to Durg with a valid season ticket. During the journey, the train became severely overcrowded, largely because of ticketless passengers. Amidst the jostling and pushing inside the compartment, Gurmeet Singh fell from the moving train and succumbed to his injuries.

A police report confirmed that the death occurred due to a fall from a running train. The parents filed a compensation claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, alleging that the incident was an “untoward incident” arising from railway negligence.

However, the Tribunal rejected the claim on 26 April 2011, finding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger because no valid ticket was produced at the time of investigation. The claimants then appealed to the High Court under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

Issues Before the Court

The High Court was primarily called upon to decide the following questions:

• Whether the deceased could be considered a bona fide passenger despite the non-production of a ticket.
• Whether the Railways could be held liable for the death of a bona fide passenger caused by overcrowding and pushing by ticketless travellers.
• Whether delayed and defective investigation by railway authorities affects the credibility of the defence.

Arguments of the Parties

For the Appellants

1. The claimants produced an Identity Card issued by the Railways, associated with the deceased’s valid season ticket, which served as travel authorisation between Bhilai and Durg.
2. They relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. Rina Devi [(2019) 3 SCC 572], where it was held that mere absence of a ticket does not negate the claim of being a bona fide passenger. Once an affidavit of relevant facts is filed, the burden shifts to the Railways to prove otherwise.
3. The appellants also cited that the police investigation report confirmed accidental death from a running train.
4. They argued that overcrowding and negligence in controlling ticketless passengers directly led to the fatal incident.

For the Respondent (Union of India)

1. The Railways contended that no ticket was recovered from the deceased’s body, and the identity card produced was forged.
2. It claimed that the appellants fabricated evidence to claim false compensation.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) report alleged that the deceased had been run over by a goods train, and not a passenger train, and therefore was not a legitimate passenger.

Findings of the Court

1. On the Issue of Bona Fide Passenger

The Court referred to paragraph 29 of the Supreme Court ruling in Rina Devi and reiterated that:

“Mere absence of a ticket with the injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. The initial burden can be discharged by filing an affidavit of relevant facts, whereafter the burden shifts to the Railways.”

Applying this principle, the Court observed that:

• The deceased possessed a valid Identity Card connected to a season ticket, valid on the date of the accident.
• The claimants submitted affidavits corroborated by a co-passenger, Deepak Kumar, confirming that the deceased fell due to overcrowding and a push by passengers.
• Therefore, the burden shifted to the Railways to prove otherwise—a burden it failed to discharge.

The High Court concluded that Gurmeet Singh was indeed a bona fide passenger on the date of the incident.

2. Delay and Deficiency in Investigation

The Court severely criticised the Railways’ delayed DRM inquiry, which was initiated almost one year after the accident. Under Rule 6(2) of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2020, such investigations must be completed within 60 days of receiving accident information. The Court referred to two precedents:

• Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. General Manager, South Eastern Central Railway [(2019) 12 SCC 387], where delayed inquiry was held fatal to the Railways’ case; and
• Bhola v. Union of India (2018 SCC OnLine Del), which ruled that delayed DRM reports lack evidentiary value.

Hence, the High Court held that the DRM report—conducted 12 months post-incident—was of no consequence and could not rebut the claimants’ case.

3. Railway’s Duty to Prevent Ticketless Travel

One of the most significant observations of the Court lies in its acknowledgement of the Railway’s statutory and constitutional duty to ensure passenger safety. The Court stated:

“It is the responsibility of the Railways to ensure that only valid ticket holders are on board. If they fail to detect and restrain ticketless persons from boarding and such persons’ presence causes death of a lawful passenger, it amounts to contributory negligence on the part of the Railway Administration.”

The Court noted that the death occurred due to overcrowding, exacerbated by the failure of railway personnel to prevent unauthorised travellers from entering the compartment. Such failure, the Court emphasised, constitutes a breach of statutory duty under Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which obligate the administration to compensate victims of untoward incidents.

Judicial Reasoning

A. Burden of Proof and Presumption of Bona Fide Travel

The Court relied on the reasoning in Rina Devi to shift the evidentiary burden. The appellants had discharged their initial burden through affidavits and corroborative witness testimony. Once that was done, the onus shifted to the Railways to prove that the deceased was not travelling lawfully.

The failure of the Railways to provide documentary or witness evidence supporting its claim of forgery led the Court to accept the appellants’ version.

B. Invalid DRM Report

The Court noted serious procedural lapses in the Railway’s DRM report:

• Conducted one year after the incident.
• Contained contradictions about whether the deceased’s ticket was fake or unrelated.
• Failed to follow the prescribed timeline and procedure.

Such defects rendered the report unreliable, especially when juxtaposed with the police investigation and eyewitness statements.

C. Statutory Liability under Section 124-A

Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 provides that compensation is payable for death or injury in an “untoward incident,” irrespective of any wrongful act or neglect by the Railways, unless exceptions (suicide, self-inflicted injury, intoxication, etc.) apply.

The Court clarified that even if overcrowding was caused partly by external circumstances, the Railways’ failure to maintain safety measures and prevent unauthorised boarding established negligence sufficient to invoke statutory liability.

D. Contributory Negligence of the Railways

By allowing ticketless passengers to overcrowd compartments, the Railways contributed to the unsafe environment that directly caused the fall and death. The Court termed this “contributory negligence,” emphasising that safety supervision is inseparable from operational responsibility. The administration cannot escape liability by shifting blame onto individual acts of passengers when systemic failure is evident.

Decision and Relief

The High Court set aside the Railway Claims Tribunal’s order and held the appellants entitled to compensation of ₹8,00,000 (Rupees Eight Lakhs), to be paid within eight weeks. The Court expressly recognised the Railways’ contributory negligence in allowing ticketless overcrowding and its failure to provide a safe travel environment.

Conclusion

Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Vijay Singh Gour v. Union of India underscores an important message: railway safety cannot be reduced to mere ticket verification; it encompasses the broader duty to regulate, supervise, and prevent unsafe travel conditions. When a genuine passenger dies due to overcrowding caused by unchecked ticketless travellers, the Railways cannot evade responsibility.

By recognising contributory negligence of the Railways and ordering compensation, the judgment reinforces both accountability and empathy in public transport governance. It affirms that the right to travel safely is an extension of the right to life, and administrative indifference to overcrowding cannot be tolerated in a system meant to serve millions daily.