Provide better on-board security, HC tells Railways
26 Feb 2015
On the eve of the railway budget, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday asked the railways to reconsider its policy and provide better security to commuters in long-distance trains.
The court was hearing a petition filed by a young woman who lost her leg after she was pushed out of a moving train by a thief who she was chasing after he snatched her bag.
The Railways informed the court that trains are classified into three categories for the purpose of providing security -- highly vulnerable, vulnerable and normal.
In the case of highly vulnerable trains, full security is provided, while in vulnerable trains, security is provided randomly. In the case of normal trains, no on-board security is provided.
To this, the bench headed by Justice Abhay Oka said, "Your policy on the issue of providing security to the commuters in trains is not proper. Reconsider your policy and take a stand by 21 March.''
The petitioner, Bhavika Mehta, was travelling from Amritsar to Mumbai Central in 2012, and was robbed on board. When she tried to chase the thief, the accused pushed her out of the moving train. Mehta's leg was amputated because of the injuries. She had filed a petition claiming compensation from the railways following the accident.
As Mehta could not get medical aid in a nearby civil hospital, she got herself admitted to a private hospital in Chandigarh and claimed a compensation of Rs9 lakh. This was granted to her, but later, to fit a prosthetic leg an extra Rs5 lakh was required, which the railways refused to provide.
Appearing for Mehta, advocate Uday Warunjikar argued, "The railways have been negligent in not attending to the medical needs of the girl (and) her family members had to run from pillar to post to get the required amount."
However, counsel for the railways said, "Railways is liable to pay compensation only if it is proved that there was negligence by it."
The issue on security in trains cropped up after the court observed that it was an admitted position that no constable was deployed in the compartment and it was a clear violation of the fundamental rights of commuters as their lives were endangered.
The bench at an earlier hearing was irked with the affidavit filed by the divisional medical officer of Central Railway stating that Mehta could have avoided the accident.
