n a significant move to enhance passenger safety and modernize railway operations, the Bombay High Court has suggested that railway authorities implement public safety announcements on all long-distance trains. The court proposed a system similar to the one used in Vande Bharat Express trains to clearly inform passengers about upcoming halts and skip-stations.
The recommendation came from a single-judge bench of Justice Jitendra Jain while presiding over an appeal filed by a passenger, Rohidas Kumavat, who was injured nearly a decade ago while attempting to alight from a moving train at Jalgaon station.
The High Court observed a disparity between the information provided for local and long-distance travel. While local trains often utilize display boards or announcements to notify passengers of skipped stations, such systems are notably absent for long-distance fleets on many platforms.
“However, in long-distance trains, such a display board or announcement is not found on the platforms. Long-distance trains are also used by passengers to travel short distances from one railway station to another,” the High Court noted.
The court emphasized that when no announcements are made regarding where a train will or will not halt, a passenger cannot be entirely faulted for attempting to board or alight at their intended destination, even if the train does not stop there.
The case dates back to an incident where Rohidas Kumavat was traveling from Manmad to Jalgaon on the Guwahati Express. Believing the train would halt at Jalgaon—a major station in Maharashtra—Kumavat prepared to disembark. When he realized the train was not stopping, he fell while the train was in motion, resulting in head and leg injuries.
In January 2018, the Railway Claims Tribunal rejected his compensation claim, categorizing the event as a “self-inflicted injury” rather than an “untoward incident,” arguing that Kumavat fell because he was sitting near the door and tried to jump off a moving train.
Justice Jitendra Jain disagreed with the Tribunal’s assessment. The High Court held that Kumavat was a bona fide passenger who acted out of panic rather than a deliberate intent to harm himself.
“On realising that the train has not halted at Jalgaon, if a person attempts to de-board a moving train, it is but natural that some injury would be caused,” the court remarked.
The bench further explained the psychological state of a passenger in such a crisis: “The applicant could have waited for the next station to alight from the train, but at that point in time, a person loses his mental balance and, in panic, tries to alight without there being any intention of self-inflicted injury.”
While awarding compensation, the High Court also extended a stern warning to the public. Justice Jain advised passengers to prioritize their lives over the inconvenience of missing a station or paying a fine.
“I am conscious that at that point of time, a human being may take steps to risk their life, but it is at that point of time that the mental balance is tested. This is required in the larger interest of the passengers’ family members,” the Judge stated.
The court directed the railway authorities to pay Rs 80,000 in compensation to Kumavat within 12 weeks.
