© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Observing that generally when a person is travelling on a local train, he hangs his backpack on the front and not back, a sessions court in Thane said it seems unreasonable that the Mumbra rail accident, which led to the death of five passengers on June 9, was due to the bags carried by passengers on the footboard.
In the detailed order rejecting anticipatory bail on Thursday to two Central Railway (CR) engineers named by the Government Railway Police (GRP) in the FIR, the court said the incident does not seem like a mere accident and could have been avoided if deficiencies pointed out in a technical report were cured by the Railway authorities, which they did after the incident.
“Applicants have obtained caution order for maintenance of the track, but they failed to carry out necessary repair work, but the same was carried out after the incident which prima facie shows omission on part of applicants …prima facie, it seems that the alleged incident was not mere accident, but an outcome of knowing default or omission of applicants and other railway authorities. A detailed investigation is required to unearth the truth…Thus, custodial interrogation of applicants is required,” said Additional Sessions judge G T Pawar in an order made available
on Friday.
The pleas of Assistant Divisional Engineer Vishal Dolas and Senior Section Engineer Samar Yadav, who were allegedly in-charge of maintenance of the tracks were rejected on Thursday.
The court considered the conflicting reports submitted by Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute (VJTI), which the GRP is relying on to prove the alleged negligence by the engineers due to which the accident occurred, as well as the the Central Railway’s five-member expert committee report, which blamed a commuter’s protruding backpack. The court said it is evident from the VJTI report that three to four days before the incident near Mumbra railway station on June 9, a track in that section was replaced but no welding was done, leading to a 17mm separation gap which resulted in jerking of train coaches.
It also said the report showed that the distance between two tracks was uneven, varying from 4230mm to 4290mm, and the trains tilted towards each other, reducing the clearance between the coaches, which could be the reason for the accident. It also said that the speed of the train should not have been more than 69kmph but was 75kmph. “All these deficiencies pointed out by VJTI were afterwards cured by the railway authorities. If those deficiencies were cured prior to the incident, this accident might not have happened,” said the court.
On the railway’s report blaming overcrowding, the court said the report is not supported by photographs, panchnama or spot inspection to suggest that passengers were carrying backpacks measuring 30cm in thickness. It also said local trains are the main mode of transport for the city and that they are overcrowded during peak hours. The court said the engineers were aware of this and were entrusted with maintenance of the trains and the tracks as responsible public servants, and that safety measures are required to be taken for crowd safety too.
“Applicants and railway authorities were aware about the crowd in the train. They themselves have fixed the train schedule and speed of trains. They were aware about the fact that in peak hours, if passengers do not get space inside the coach, they travel on footboard. Generally when a person is travelling in a local train, he hangs his backpack on the front side and not on the back side. The conclusion drawn by the five members’ expert committee seems to be unreasonable that merely because of backpacks carried by passengers on footboards was the reason for such an untoward incident,” the court said.
During the proceedings in court, prosecutor Manisha Pawse, representing the GRP, also raised the issue of the damage seen on the coaches. Advocate Baldev Rajput, representing the two lawyers, said that the damage predated the accident.
The court said that the five-member committee’s conclusion that the damage to the coaches was because of backpacks hitting them, ‘appears to be flimsy’. Rajput said that an appeal will be filed against the order. The lawyer also said that the Railways was involved in 24X7 maintenance work of tracks, due to which the lifeline operates smoothly daily.
