Passenger who overtravelled too entitled to compensation: Bombay HC

Merely because a victim of railway accident had over-travelled, he or his kin cannot be deprived of compensation, Bombay high court has held.

The railway, in this case, had pleaded that since the victim had travelled beyond what his pass permitted, he was a "fraudulent" traveller, and no compensation was due.

Vaishali Nitesh Bhalerao (25), who lost her husband to a railway accident near Shegaon station on April 29, 2003, had sought compensation under the Railways Act, 1989.

Nitesh had gone to Mumbai to take Railway Recruitment Board's examination, and was returning by Vidarbha Express, when he fell out onto the tracks and died.

The Railway Accident Claims Tribunal rejected his wife's application for compensation, because Nitesh was found to have 'over-travelled'.

According to Railway, he had been given a free pass by the Recruitment Board, which was valid only upto Bhusaval.

However, Nitesh travelled further, before meeting with accident near Shegaon. He was not a "bonafide" passenger as defined under the Act.

The Railway also said that there was no evidence to suggest that the death was accidental.

Relying on this argument, tribunal rejected the claim in April 2006.

But justice AP Bhangale overturned railway tribunal's ruling. In the order last week, High Court said: "Merely because he had over-travelled beyond the authorised distance of Bhusawal, it would not be enough to label him as a malafide or fraudulent passenger."

"Looking to the rulings cited and provisions of the Act, Railway Manual, at the most, the Railway could have recovered excess fare or charge from him beyond the travelling destination," the judge said.

Also, justice Bhangale added, the provision of compensation was a part of "welfare legislation", therefore, it should be interpreted in a liberal manner.

Setting aside tribunal's view, the court directed the railway to give compensation of Rs four lakh to Vaishali.