law: Railways Act, 1989
  124. Extent of liability.  
  When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs,
  
  being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying
  
  passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a
  
  train carrying passengers, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act,
  
  neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would
  
  entitle a passenger who has been injured or has suffered a loss to maintain an
  
  action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration
  
  shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay
  
  compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for
  
  loss occasioned by the death of passenger dying as a result of such accident,
  
  and for personal injury and loss, destruction, damage or deterioration of goods
  
  owned by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train,
  
  sustained as a result of such accident.
  Explanation.-  For the, purposes of this section
  
  "passenger" includes a railway servant on duty.
  Comment:  Mr. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the
  
  railway administration does not dispute that under the new Act, there is
  
  statutory liability on the railways but submits that the 1989 Act does not have
  
  any retrospective operation. We do not wish to go into that question in this
  
  case and leave that issue open. We are resting our case on the breach of common
  
  law duty of reasonable care, which lies upon all carriers including the
  
  railways. The standard of care is high and strict. It is not a case where the
  
  omission on the part of the railway officials can be said to be wholly
  
  unforeseen or beyond their control. Here there has been a complete dereliction
  
  of duty which resulted in a precious life been taken away, rendering the
  
  guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution illusory. Had the deceased not
  
  pulled the alarm chain with a view to stop the train, the position might have
  
  been different. Liability in this case is fault based. Such a liability is not
  
  inconsistent with the scheme of the Railways Act of 1890 either (Refer Section
  
  80 with advantage). P. A. Narayanan v. Union of India,  AIR 1998 SUPREME
  
  COURT 1659