Railways to pay for bridge collapse accidents

The dept inquiry conducted by the Railways revealed that the bridge had collapsed due to corrosion of the connecting cross girders

Vinaya Vilas Sawant was employed as a telephone operator in the MTNL, Mumbai. She held a second-class railway pass for the Borivali – Churchgate sector, and used to travel from her home in Jogeshwari to her office at Churchgate. On September 28, 1992 at about 8.30 pm, when she and her husband were returning home, they used the railway over bridge at Jogeshwari Station. The bridge suddenly collapsed, and the couple fell onto the tracks from a height of about 25 feet. The couple lost consciousness and were taken to Cooper Hospital.

Sawant not only lost the jewellery, which she had worn at the time of the incident, but had to remain on medical leave for over two years. She sustained permanent disability. She filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation and damages from the Railways.

The departmental inquiry conducted by the Railways revealed that the bridge had collapsed due to corrosion of the connecting cross girders. Yet, in its reply to the Forum, the Railways claimed that on the day of the incident there was sudden, strong wind accompanied by heavy rainfall, so a large number of persons had taken shelter on the bridge. This resulted in its collapse. 

The Railways also contended that the incident had occurred in September 1992, but the complaint was filed in November 1999, so it was time barred. The Railways even disputed that she was a bonafide commuter as she was unable to produce either the pass or a ticket. The Railways argued that Sawant should claim her medical expenses from MTNL instead of seeking compensation from the Railways.

Jehangir B Gai

The District Forum dismissed the complaint and so did the State Commission on grounds that the forum did not have jurisdiction to decide the dispute as it would fall within the purview of the Railways Claims Tribunal. Sawant went in revision to the National Commission which held that the complaint was maintainable, and remanded it back for determining the amount of compensation.

The State Commission ordered the Railways to pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs 10 lakh along with nine per cent interest from the date of the order, and awarded Rs 5,000 as litigation costs. Both parties challenged this order in revision, with Sawant wanting the amount to be enhanced, and the Railways wanting it to be set aside. The National Commission observed that despite numerous opportunities, the Railways had failed to produce the internal inquiry report. Sawant’s husband filed an affidavit to explain how they were travelling and he appeared before the Commission to explain the facts. So they believed that she was a bonafide commuter. 

As regards the compensation, it observed that it would be appropriate to consider the initial claim of Rs 4.95 lakh as being suitable. Accordingly, by its order of November 2, 2017 delivered by B C Gupta for the Bench along with S M Kantikar, the National Commission reduced the compensation to the amount of Rs 4.95 lakh as originally claim. It ordered the railways to pay this amount along with 9 per cent interest. No costs were awarded.

The author is a consumer activist