The Bombay High Court on Wednesday denied railway accident compensation to an injured passenger after finding that he had consumed four large pegs of alcohol before the incident [Harish Narayan Suvarna v. Union Of India]
The passenger had stood at the edge of the platform and was knocked down by a train.
The Court ruled that passengers who get injured while intoxicated are not entitled to railway accident compensation even if the incident otherwise qualifies as an untoward railway accident under the law.
The Court reasoned that intoxication can impair judgment and contribute to dangerous conduct.
Justice Jitendra Jain reflected on the broader consequences of alcohol consumption while concluding the decision.
“Alcohol ruins, it ruins everything…. Physical and mental health, relationships, causes family breakdown, social dysfunction, career disruption and has severe long-term lifestyle consequences. I am reminded of this quote by F. Scott Fitzgerald ‘First you take a drink, then the drink takes a drink, then the drink takes you’," the Court said.
The appeal arose from a 2014 order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, which had rejected the claim for compensation under the Railways Act, 1989.
The injured passenger had approached the tribunal seeking damages for injuries suffered in a railway incident that occurred in the early hours of March 10, 2001.
Court records showed that the man was waiting on the platform around midnight for a train to Borivali when he was hit by an approaching train and seriously injured.
The railway staffs first took him to a government hospital and later shifted him to Bombay Hospital for further treatment.
Medical records from Bombay Hospital established that the passenger had consumed four large pegs of alcohol before dinner.
The High Court relied on this report, observing that it was recorded based on the patient’s own statement at the time of treatment and was never disputed during the proceedings.
The tribunal had earlier rejected the claim on the ground that the passenger had been “knocked down,” and that the incident did not qualify as an untoward railway accident.
However, the High Court disagreed, holding that he was not crossing the tracks but rather standing close to the edge of the platform when the train arrived, which could still fall within the scope of an accidental railway incident.
Despite this, the Court examined the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, which bars compensation if an injury occurs due to acts committed in a state of intoxication.
The Court held that consuming a substantial quantity of alcohol amounted to intoxication and that standing near the platform edge in such a condition constituted risky conduct directly connected to the injury.
The injured passenger’s counsel pointed to earlier cases where compensation was granted despite mentions of intoxication.
However, the Court observed those rulings were different because they lacked confirmed medical evidence. In the present case, the hospital record clearly reflected alcohol consumption.
Hence, the Court held that while the incident could qualify as an untoward incident, the statutory exclusion relating to intoxication applied.
Hence, it dismissed the appeal.
Advocate Sainand Chougule appeared for the injured appellant.
The Western Railways were represented by advocates Chetan C Agrawal and Rushikesh Bhorania, appearing for the Union of India (respondent).
[Read Judgment]