Auto-Rickshaw Driver Tried To Cross Unmanned Railway Crossing As Train Approached, Though Two Rickshaws Waited; Gujarat HC Upholds Denial Of Family’s Compensation Claim

On 27 August 2003, Bachubhai Dabhi was driving an auto-rickshaw across an unmanned railway level crossing when he saw an approaching train.

The rickshaw stopped on the tracks and was struck by the train, killing him.

His widow and children filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the vehicle’s owner and the Union of India.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding the deceased solely negligent; it also found that the claimants had not proved the alleged owner’s ownership of the vehicle.

The claimants appealed.

1. Whether the deceased’s conduct at the unmanned level crossing amounted to negligence that was the sole cause of the accident, relieving the Railways of liability.

2. Whether the Railways could be held liable for breach of statutory or common-law duties at the crossing on the evidence presented.

3. Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the claim arising from the collision between a motor vehicle and a train.

Section 161 of the Railways Act, 1989 treats a person driving or leading a vehicle as negligent when crossing an unmanned level crossing without stopping or caring to stop to check for approaching rolling stock, or when crossing while rolling stock is in sight.

Section 131 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 requires a driver approaching an unguarded railway crossing to stop and ensure that no train or trolley is approaching before crossing.

Relying on Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1997) 8 SCC 683, the Court recognised that the Railways may owe common-law duties of care at level crossings, enforceable alongside or independently of statutory duties; liability depends on proof of a breach of the applicable duty.

The Court also proceeded on the basis that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the matter, without treating jurisdiction as determinative of liability.

The Court found that the deceased attempted to cross while two other rickshaws were stopped, and that he was frightened by the approaching train, causing his rickshaw to stop on the tracks.

The claimant’s witness acknowledged that a signboard was present, that a train could be heard, and that taking precautions could have avoided the accident.

The train’s loco pilot and co-loco pilot testified that they had continuously sounded the horn; the evidence did not establish a relevant omission by the Railways.

Applying Sections 161 and 131, the Court concluded that the deceased had failed to take the required precautions and was solely negligent.

It found no evidentiary basis to impose statutory or common-law liability on the Railways.

The appeal was dismissed, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the Tribunal.