Talk to a RailFan - you will learn a LOT about Trains.

THE VERDICT
On 17 September 2013, the Madras High Court ruled that Duria's death on the Dindigul platform could be categorized as an "untoward incident" and directed Southern Railway to pay his legal heirs '4 lakh as compensation with interest. But Southern Railway appealed. In the Supreme Court, the Railway's lawyers argued that Durai's death could not be attributed to negligence, or even categorized as untoward, since he had also been undergoing treatment for chest pain at least 10 years before his death.
Even so, on 22 January 2015, a Supreme Court Bench,...
more...

led by Chief Justice H.L Dattu dismissed the appeal. It upheld the High Court order and Southern Railway to pay Durai's legal heirs '4 lakh with six percent interest. The Supreme Court felt that this amount was too meagre for Southern Railway to argue against. What's unusual is that the Bench, reports say, acted more out of compassion for the family rather than the letter of the law.
Should such compassion be a criterion in such cases ? Must this case, involving an unfortunate widow, have been dragged by a government agency upto the Supreme Court ? Is this a case of JUDICIAL ACTIVISM ? Should the railways be regarded as a commercial enterprise or as a MILCH COW which can be sucked dry to provide humanitarian assistance to its passengers even when it is not at fault ?
(Sourced from the July 2015 issue of the Reader Digest)