Most victims termed ‘trespassers’
In the last six years, 47,663 local trains passengers have met with accidents in Mumbai’s suburban areas, but the Railways, in its records, has been marking these victims as trespassers.
However, data compiled by the railway agencies, including Government Railway Police (GRP), says that only 15 to 20 per cent of the accident victims have died while crossing railway tracks. According to the GRP manual, only those who walk on railway tracks are considered trespassers.
Rail activist Samir Jhaveri has dashed off a letter to the Prime Mini-ster and President to initiate action against responsible railway officers.
Mr Jhaveri said, “Central and Western Railway of Mumbai division are intentionally giving a false heading, ‘TPRO’ (Tresspass runover) to all the victims, even for those who fell from a running train or fell in the gap between platforms and footboards of train. It is done to avoid an inquiry by the commissioner of railway safety and giving compensation.”
Recently, on March 19, while appearing in a case in Bombay high court, the operating department of Central Railway (Mumbai) placed the figures of such victims under the heading TPRO before the monitoring committee that includes senior Railway officers. Mr Jhaveri has requested the committee to change TPRO to Accident Cases in all manuals that deals with accident cases.
Every year, around 3,500 people are killed and an equal numbers of passengers get injured in the Mumbai suburban train network on the central and western lines. A study conducted by Mumbai Rail Vikas Corporation in 2009 showed that the Mumbai locals carry two to three times the passengers than its capacity. This results in overcrowding and passengers falling off trains, hit by nearby railway poles or falling into gaps.
Another rail activist, Anees Khan said, “How can a person be a declared as trespasser when he slips from an overcrowded train and dies? There are various reasons for people losing their lives or getting injured.”
CR public relations officer declined to comment saying this matter is sub judice, and strangely, also insisted that he should not be named.
Post new comment