Safety must be Railways’ top priority
Like most man-made disasters in the country, the stampede on the narrow Elphinstone foot over bridge (FOB) in Mumbai was an avoidable tragedy.
What makes it even more poignant is the fact that the railways were forewarned about it, but chose to ignore it. There is enough evidence that many regulars at this railway station had warned the railway authorities about the extremely heavy railway passenger traffic on the narrow bridge and had sought the railway’s urgent intervention. It’s unfortunate that the largest public sector undertaking did not pay heed and the consumers paid the price.
According to initial reports, the stampede, resulting in the death of 22 passengers and injury to over 35, was caused on account of a rumour about the bridge collapsing under the weight of its burden- as a large number of suburban railway commuters had got on to the bridge, in view of the heavy rain. This caused an alarm, resulting in the stampede.
The panic reflects passengers’ concern over the safety of some of the railway overbridges built at a time when the passenger traffic had not increased so exponentially. Has the railways been examining the structural stability and the load bearing capacity of these bridges? Is the railways taking appropriate measures to strengthen them and prevent collapse? It’s time the railways come up with immediate measures to prevent another tragedy. And lack of funds cannot be an excuse here.
In fact the Elphinestone tragedy reminds me of another horrific disaster involving a railway foot overbridge that came up before the consumer court some years , forcing the apex consumer court to remind the railways that it is their responsibility to maintain in good order, platforms, footpaths and overbridges for ingress and egress of passengers. Failure to do so constitutes negligence and the railways have to pay for the consequences, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had warned.
The complaint in this case pertained to the collapse of Jogeshwari railway foot overbridge on September 28, 1992. To quote from the order of the apex consumer court, because of the heavy rain, a large number of passengers had taken shelter on the bridge, when a portion of it suddenly gave way, killing and injuring several passengers.
The complainant , Vinaya Vilas Sawant, who was on the bridge with her husband, fell from a height of about 20-25 feet on the railway track below, along with the rubble. She survived the fall, but the multiple fractures and spinal injuries left her with 60 per cent disability, even after two surgeries and several years of agony and medical care.
Subsequent investigations into the collapse revealed gross negligence — the bridge was in a bad shape and the disaster was waiting to happen. Yet, in response to her complaint seeking compensation, the railways argued that they were not liable since this was not a railway accident. Besides, a person using the foot overbridge was not a consumer of the railway service and, therefore, not entitled to seek compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, the railways contended.
Dismissing this, the apex consumer court clarified that once a passenger purchased a ticket to travel by train, he or she was the consumer of all services provided by the railways in connection with that travel and this included the platform, footpath and overbridges
So, whether it’s the railway tracks or the FOBS, the railways have to give utmost priority to improving the railways’ sagging infrastructure and thereby passenger safety, so that passengers can breathe easy.