Commuter with no ticket can’t claim for injuries after fall from train, says judge

A judge ruled a commuter cannot claim from Prasa after he fell off a train because he had no ticket. Picture: Oupa Mokoena/African News Agency (ANA)

A judge ruled a commuter cannot claim from Prasa after he fell off a train because he had no ticket. Picture: Oupa Mokoena/African News Agency (ANA)

Published Feb 2, 2023

Share

Pretoria - No ticket, no claim. This was the verdict of the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, in a damages claim by a train commuter against the Passenger Rail Agency of SA (Prasa) after he was pushed off a moving train and injured himself.

Mamelodi resident Gabriel Bhiya instituted a damages claim against the rail agency, arguing it had a duty towards him to ensure his safety while he was a paying commuter travelling on its trains.

Bhiya testified that he was a regular commuter on a morning train from his home in Mamelodi East to Midstream, Centurion, where he was employed.

In October 2016 he was in possession of a ticket when he boarded the train at the station at Mamelodi on his way to work, he said.

At one stage he stood up and moved towards the door to disembark at Pinedene Station. The train was full. Some passengers were sitting; others were standing. The train stopped on the platform at Pinedene Station, however, the doors did not open and the train moved away from the platform.

Bhiya said that a short distance further, the carriage doors opened. In an attempt to steady himself, or for physical support to remain standing, he tried to lean against fellow passengers.

He was not able to and was pushed through the open carriage doors. He fell to the ground and injured his left arm and shoulder.

A Prasa officer came to his assistance and Bhiya said he showed the man his train ticket. He was told to put the ticket back in his pocket, before he was taken to hospital.

His sister testified that she later took his belongings from the hospital, which included his train ticket. According to her, she later went to Prasa’s office to obtain forms so that he could lodge a claim. She said she showed them the train ticket, before placing it in the boot of her car.

The ticket had meanwhile disappeared and she said she had no idea where it was. She later said she could not recall if she did take the ticket at the hospital or whether she showed it to the officials. She could also not recall whether, if she did show it to the officials, they had handed it back to her.

Acting Judge SK Hassim said she was not persuaded that the sister’s evidence that she could not recall what happened to the ticket was true.

“She had taken pains to safeguard the plaintiff’s ID document and the ticket when he was in hospital.

“She returned his cellphone to him after he was discharged from hospital, but kept the ID document and the ticket with her for safekeeping. Against this background, I cannot accept that she cannot recall what happened to the ticket,” the judge said.

The Prasa official who assisted Bhiya on the scene testified that the latter told him that he had never had a ticket in the first place.

The judge concluded that Bhiya had not bought a ticket. She said he thus travelled on the train, not only in breach of a statutory obligation to pay a fare, but where the failure to comply with the statutory obligation constitutes an offence.

Public policy and the legal convictions of society demand that the public pay for services rendered to them, the judge said. Bhiya wanted to benefit from a free train ride and also hold Prasa accountable for his injuries, she said. The rail agency could not under these circumstances be held liable for the injuries Bhiya suffered.

Pretoria News