Subject NOT available

click here for IIIF manifest

REGISTERED No. D. 221

The Gazette of India

EXTRAORDINARY

PART II—Section 3—Subsection (ii)

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 149] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, AUGUST 5, 1968/SRAVANA 14, 1885

MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

(Railway Board)

RESOLUTION

New Delhi, the 22nd July 1963

S.O. 2003—In continuation of Notification No. E(AO)58AP1/2 dated 7th January, 1958, published in Part II, Section 3 of the Government of India Gazette Extraordinary dated the 7th January, 1958, the Government of India have received the Report submitted by the Commission of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Shri B. N. Nigam, I.C.S., a Judge of the Allahabad High Court on the causes of collision between No. 2 DU Down Passenger and No. 45 Up Delhi-Pathankot Janata Express at. Mohri station of the Northern Railway on 1st January, 1958 and hereby publish it for general information. The Government have accepted the findings and after due consideration taken appropriate action on the various matters brought out in the Report.

PART I—GENERAL

The Commission was appointed by notification No. E(AO) 58 API/2 dated 7th January, 1958, issued by Government of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board). The notification reads :—

"WHEREAS the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary to appoint a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making an inquiry into the causes of the collision between No. 2 DU/Down Passenger Train and 45 UP Delhi-Pathankot Janata Express at 4/17 hours on 1-1-1958 at Mohri Station on the Delhi-Ambala Section of the Northern Railway.

( 399 )

M/B(D)158GI—l

Now, therefore, in exercise of tho powers conferred by Section 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Aot 1-952 (GO of 1952) the Central Government hereby appoints a Commisuion of Inquiry consisting of :—

(i) Justice B. N. Nigam, I.C.S., a Judge of the Allahabad High Court —Chairman.

(ii) Shri Ferozo Gandhi, M.P.—Member.

(Hi) Shrl J. N. Nanda, retired. General Manager, of Ex.-Nizam State Railway—Member.

2. Thfl said Commission shall—

(i) make an enquiry into the causes of the said aooidont and for that purpose take suoh evidonoe as may be necessary.

(ii) state its findings as to causes of the said accident and as to tho person or persons if any, responsible therefor; and

(Hi) suggest safeguards against similar accidents in future.

3. The said Commission shall submit its report to tho Central Government within a period of one month from the date on which it commences its inquiry."

2. The Commission met for a preliminary meeting at Delhi on January 23 and 24-, 1958, and held discussions about the venue of the inquiry and other matters. A notice was issued by the Commission and published in newspapers inviting all individuals and representatives of sections of the publio, who wished to take part in the inquiry or to give evidence before the Commission to send their names and statement of tho case to tho Secretary. The Commission has also considered names and statements of cane received after tho expiry of that date. The Commission intended to start the inquiry at Ambala on 28th Jan- uary, 1958, but it was represented by Shri Sadlui Ram, Driver of the 45 Up Janata Express that ho wanted to be represented by a counsel, who would not be available on that date. The Commission, acceded to his request for an adjourn- ment and commenced the enquiry on February 3, 1958.

Study of Model and_ Experiment's

3. The Railway Administration had prepared a model illustrating the sys- tem of working of trains at Mohri Station and tho signalling and interlocking devioos. Tho Commission studied tho railway operations involved in the recep- tion and dospatch of trains at Mohri by witnessing the working of the model and decided upon various experiments to be oarTicd out at site. The Com- mission spent a few days in studying the evidence m;oided by tho Government Inspector of Railways.

4. On the first day the Commission carried out an inspection of the site of the acoident and also certain experiments as to braking power, visibility,

operation of points, interlocking and familiarised itself with the system of work- ing of trains with speoiftl reference to the lay-out of the station yard, in order to understand any natural difficulties in working in and around the area.

6. The recording of evidence commenoed at Circuit House, Ambala Cantt., on 4th February, 1958. In all tho Commission has examined 69 witnesses. In order to avoid reoording unnecessary evidence the Commission has in respect of witnossos examined by it, in nearly all oases, taken on its record the statements of those witnesses recorded by the Government Inspector of Railways. The Commission has in addition invited oertain other persons including Railway Officers to give evidenoe as to the conditions at the time of the aooident or possible causes thereof.

Topography

6. The aooident in question took place on 1-1-58 at about 4-16 A.M. at Mohri station. Mohri is a small station on the Delhi-Ambala Section between Ambala Cantt. (at a distance of 5£ miles) and Shahabad Markanda (at a distance of 6J miles). The railway line in this locality runs through fairly flat and level country. At the station the lino runs almost directly North-South. Approach- ing Mohri station from Shahabad Markanda side, tho lino rises 1 in 1000 for about a milo up to a point 3336 feet from the oentre of Mohri station building. From that point all the way through to Mohii station and 3182 feet beyond the track ia level. South of tho station, there is a curve, whioh extends from a point 4962 feot to a point 3336 feet from the centro of the Mohri station. Otherwise in this length the line is straight throughout.

There is a 7 X 40 feet girder bridge, about a mile south of Mohri Station and it begins at telegraph post 115/17.

Description of Signals and Points

7. The signals and the points on tho Delhi side are designated 'Up' signals and 'Up' points and those on the Ambala side 'Down' signals and 'Down' points. Tha reception of trains from Delhi side is controlled by 'Up' outer and the 'Up' home signals and those from Ambala side by 'Down' outer and 'Down' home signals. The trains from Delhi side aro 'Up' trains and those from Ambala side are termed 'Down' trains.

8. The 'Up' outer signal at mile 116/4-5 should be visible from a distanoe of 2800 feet to a train approaching from Delhi side. According to observations made by the Oommisaion, the 'Up' outer signal is visible from a distance of 2230 feet south of that signal. Tho 'Up' home signal should be visible from a point 3300 feet from the 'home' signal. In making observations on the spot, the Commission found that it is aotually visiblo from a distance of 3315 feet. The distanoe between the outer and the homo signals is 1935 feet. This means that both the outer and the home signals are visible 1365 feet before the outer signal.

Layout and Speed Restrictions

9. Mohri station is a olass 'B' station. There is only one rail-level platform. There are two lines, i.o. the main line and the loop line. In praotioo, all trains

stopping at Mohri are taken, on to the loop line, i.e. the lino adjaoent to the platform. Other trains, which do not atop at Mohri, run through on the main line. There ia a restriction of apeed. The speed on the main line is restricted to 30 miles per hour and the speed on thd loop line ia restricted to 10 miles per hour. On the 'Down' side there is one signal arm in the outer signal which serves both the main and the loop lines. The home signal has two arms—one for the loop and the other for the main line. There are no wamer signals. Similar signals are placed on the Up-side. Between the platform and the home signals there is one starter signal for eaoh line on either side.

Scheduled Timings.

10. The trains that wern involved in the collision were 45 Up Delhi- Pathankot Janata Express and 2 DU Ambala-Delhi Passenger. As per time table, 2 DU is due to leave Ambala at 3-50 A.M. The Janata Express should leave Shahabad Markanda at 3-42 A.M. It should arrive at Mohri and should stop there to permit 2 DU to run through. The halt at Mohri is not a halt mentioned in the public time table. The Janata Express is quite often late and then the 2 DU stops at Mohri and the Janata Express is allowed to run through Mohri.

11. On the particular day, 1 Up was late. It reached Ambala Cantt.

at 3 • 50 a.m. The departure of 2 DU from Ambala Cantt. was delayed. 2 DU should have arrived at Mohri at 4 • 08 A.M. but it aotually readied there at 4 • 13 A.M. (This time of arrival of 2 DU at Mohri is contested by the learned counsel for the driver, Shri Sadhu Earn and fireman, Shri Earn Sunder. We will revert to this subsequently.) 2 DU was not permitted to run through ns 45 Up Delhi- Pathankot Janata Express was running approximately 21 minutes late and left Shahabad Markanda at 4-03 or 4-04 A.M. The trains had to cross at Mohri. The Assistant Station Master obtained instructions from the Control at Delhi and waB directed to reoeive 2 DU first, to detain it on the loop line end to let the Janata Express pass through, running on the main lino.

12. The 2 DU Delhi-Ambala Passenger which arrived at Mohri at 4-13 A.M. was received on the loop line. At 4-10 A.M. the Janata Express arrived at Mohri and came on to the loop line. It collided head-on with 2 DU passenger, which was standing on that line.

Casualties

13. As a result of the collision, 36 persona died, 31 on the spot and 5 subse- quently in the hospital; in addition 88 persons received hurts.

Damage,

14. Considerable damage was caused to the two engines and some of the ooaoheB of the two rakea. The front ends of the engines were partially teles- coped and some of the ongine parts bent, twisted and broken. The bodies of the firBt two coaohea next to the engine of 45 Up were reduced to match-wood and their under-frames were bent and twisted. The third coach was damaged and derailed. The 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th ooaohes did not derail but received slight damage. The remaining throe coaohos did not suffer any damage.

15. Thobody of coach behind the engine of 2 DU was completely splintered and the following coaoh was so heavily damaged that it had to bo condemned. As a result of tho impact the 2 DU, whioh had its brakes on, was pushed back, fcho engine being pushed back 90 feet.

16. The track was damaged for a distanoe of 210 feet. Two rails were broken to pieoes and ten rails wero bent and twisted and 82 sleepers were crush- ed. The tongue rail and the inter-looking gear of trap point No. K. 3. had Buffered damage.

17. 2 DU was worked by engine No. 7773—HPS/2. It had a load of 8 bogies plus a four-whooler parcel van. Its total length was about 626 feet and tho weight about 484 tons. 45 UpJanata Express was worked by engine No. 7639-WP. It had a load of 10 bogies. Its total length inoluding the engine was 754 foot and tho weight about 619 tona,

Working Rules

18. Briefly stated, for crowing two passenger trains, only one of which stops at this station, tho usual praotioo at Mohri is that the train due to arrive first is received on the loop line and arrangement made for running through of the second train. For reoeiving a train on the loop line, according to tho rules in force, the main line facing points on both the sides have to be set and locked for the loop line and two trap points on tho loop line (one on either sido of the station) have to be set in the closed posi- tion and locked. Unless this is done, tne proper signals on one sido of the railway station for the 'Up¹ or 'Down' train cannot be lowered for the recep- tion of the train on the loop lino. On the side opposite to that from whioh the trj.in is coming, the trap point is to bo locked in tLo closed position and tho facing point sot and looked for the loop line to prevent accident due to over-shooting by the ooming train.

Working Rules for Running Through

19. For the purpose of passing the second train running through on the ra ain lino, after the first train has oome to ti hnlt on the loop line and the necewary Hue dear obtained from the adjoining station, the trap points on the loop line have to be sot in tho open position and locked. Then the facing points on. the main, line have to bo set and looked for the main line. It is only then that the appropriate signals for the passago of the train can be lowered.

Cise for Assistant Station Master

20. While the Commission has considered all possible causes of the aooidwt and will give reasons foi eliminating them, it would be well to state at this sta&e that the choice finally lios between two cases, one on behalf of the assistant station m.isfcor and the other on behalf of the driver of the ill-fated Janata Express. The oace of the assistant station nisster is that after reception of 2 DU, he was busy in obtaining the lino clear for tho Janata Express ard when he had received the line clear token and before hie, pointsmen could lock

the traps on either side in tho open position and set the facing points and look themfor tho main line and before ho could give the direction to lower the signals for the passage of the Janata Express, that train in defiance of tho signals ran into the station yard and oamo'on to the loop line and collided with the standing train-2 DU Passenger.

Case for the Driver

21. The oase for the driver on the other hand is that the Up outer and Up loop home signals were lowered for him. He did not realise that there was any danger till ho came to tho Up facing point, whioh is insido the Up home signal. When he saw tho lake of 2 ,DU standing on the loop line, he jammod his brakes and did everything, he possibly oouldp^ut could not avoid the collision. According to him, tho responsibility for the acoident must rest on the station etaff for lowering wrong signals.

PART II—OBJECTIONS

22. Before entering upon a discussion of the evidenoe, it is necessary to deal with certain gonoral objections raised by tho learned counsel for Shri Sadhu Bam and Shri Earn Sunder. The learned counsel contended that the Commission's terms of reference aro ultra-vires the Constitution. It ia suggested that this Commission oouldnot havo boen appointed to investigate into the causes of the acoidont ani to give a finding as to the person or persons who may be responsible for this aooident. It is suggested that this is tho proper function of the Criminal Courts and the appointment of this Commission infringes on the judicial functions of those Courts. It is not for this Commision to give a finding on this point. The matter should havo boen raised before the High Court or the Sup- reme Court of India. This was pointed out to Shri Anthony and he was asked to take steps, but ho gave no indication of any intention to obtain a writ res- training this Commission either from holding this enquiry or from submitting its report. It is, thurofore, not neoessary for us to disouss the matter any further.

23. Another request made by Shri Anthony was that this Commission should not record its finding on this question. We see no oooasion for delaying submitting our Report. The Commission has boen appointed by the Govern- ment of India and its Report will be submitted to the Ministry of Railways. It is for that Ministry to deoido whether tho Report of this Commission on points whioh may be raised in any oriminal proceedings should bo kept confidential, so that the Criminal Court conoerned may prooeed without any embarraBBment and without being unduly impressed by the findings of this Commiflsion.

124. Shri Anthony, in the course of bis arguments, urged that as the state- monts recorded beforo the Government Inspector of Railways have been put to the witnesses and havo been brought on to the record of the evidence of this Commission, a considerable amount of inadmissible and hearsay evidence over- burdens the Commission's record. His specific objection appears to be that

certain Railway Officers who did not observe facts themselves have stated that they were told by othor persons who had reached earlier. Shri Anthony need have no misgivings. The Commission will carefully exolude all such evidence from its consideration when arriving at conclusions.

25. Ib has also been urged that the statements of Shri Earn Sunder and Shri Sadhu Ram recorded by the Government Inspector of Railways should not be considered as those statements weie either illegally or improperly recorded. The Commission has not brought those statements on to its record. Shri Anthony's further objection is that though the statements of these persons re- corded by the Government Inspeotor of Railways were not brought on to the record of this Commission's ovidenoe, some questions were put to Shri Ram Sunder and Shri Sadhu Ram asking them if they had on any previous occasions made statements which slightly contradicted their present statements. It is suggested that putting of thoao questions, in effect, brings the statements before the Government Inapeotor of Railways on to the record of the ovidenoe before the Commission. That is not a valid conclusion. The statcmets of these witnesses made before the Government Inspector of Railways have not been brought on to tho record of the Commission and even the Government Inspeotor of Railways was not asked whether a certain statement was made before him by these two witnesses. Tho mere putting to these witnesses questions about their previous statements only gave them an opportunity of stating whether they had made that statement, and whethor that statement was correct. These two persons were not even compelled to answer all questions. At the time the statements were recorded, Shri Anthony's objeotion was that theso witnesses could not bo examined and would not give a statement unless protection was afforded to them that the statements made by them would not be lused againsb them in any subsequent enquiry or trial. Shri Anthony did not at that time suggest that theso persons be examined on oath. Keeping in view the possibility of Shri Ram Sunder and Shri Sadhu Ram being called upon to answer criminal charges and in view of their unwillingness to make statements unless protection was given to them, tho Commission did not consider it proper to record the statements of these two persons on oath. No objection was raised at that time by Sbri Anthony. Subsequently, Shri Anthony wanted the •statements of these persons ho be recorded on oath. The intention tipparently was that full weight may be attached Lo the statements of these witnesses. The Commission informed Shri Anthony that less weight will not be attached to tho statements made by Shri Ram Sunder and Shii Sadhu Ram merely because they were not examined on oath. While assessing the evidence, the Com- mission will carefully adhere to its views and weight will be given to the state- ments of those two persons as if those statements have been made on oath.

26. Shri Anthony has also objected that Shri Brij Bihari Lai and Arjan Singh, who were examined by the Government Inspector of Railways and made statements which might bo helpful to the case of Shri Ram Sunder and Shri Sadhu Ra;n, have boon deliberately kept away from appearing before the Com- mission. Effort was made to bring these witnesses before the Commission and Shri B. B. Lai was actually summoned but neither of the witnesses were exa- mined. That need cause no apprehension as the Commission proposes to take

into consideration the statements of Sarvashn B.B. Lai and Atjan Singh re- corded by the Government Inspector of Railways when discussing the evidence oxamined before it so far as they are helpful to Bhri Anthony's clients.

27. Before considering the evidence relevant for arriving at a conclusion aa to the responsibility and the actual cause of the accident, it would be proper to discusa possible causes which might have caused the accident but which have no beariug so far as this particular accident is conoerned.

Sabotage

28. In the particular case before us, there is no evidence of any damage or interference indicating that any saboteur may have been at work. Major Naurang Singh Baina, Asstt. Inspector General, Government Railway Police Ambala Oantt, has stated "I have thoroughly investigated this case and thore is no evidence to indicate that it was an act of sabotage". In the evidence be- fore us, there is no suggestion that the accident was caused by any sabotage. That cause may, therefore, be excluded.

Weather

29. The evidence of Sarvashri Santoo, P. G. Gupta, Sham Lai, Chela Ram, Basant Singh, L. D .Puri, S. R. Paul, Ram Prakash, Ram Prasad, Ram Sunder, Baohan Singh, Sadhu Ram, Arjun Singh, Diwan Chand Gulati, Jagmohan Singh, Madan Mohan Anand, Kaian Singh, Hardwari Lai and Deep Chand, indicates that it was a dark night. There was no moon and it was bitterly cold. It also indicator that there was slight mist but no fog. The sky was cloudy and there was some drizzling. We' need refer only to the evidence of three witnesses- witness no. 21 Shri Ram Prasad, driver of 1 Up, which passed Mohri at about 3*41 A.M., stated that there was an amount of fog at Mohri but it was much less than that at Shahabad Markanda and the signals at Mohri were visible. Witness no. 40, Shri Ram Sundar stated: "The weather was good. There was no difficulty about seeing the signals." Witness no. 42 Shri Sadhu Ram, had stated: "The weather was good. The signals were clearly visible to me,"

30. From this evidence it is clear that the weather did not create any con- ditions whioh nr'ght have caused the accident.

Visibility of Signals

31. The evidence of witness no. 2, Shri P. C. Gupta, witness no. 7, Shri L. D. Puri, witness no. 18, Shri S. R. Paul, and witness no. 21, Shri Ram Prasad, shows that the signals were clearly viwible on that day. The first three of these oould see the baok lights of the signals clearly and Shri Ram Prasad, driver of I Up states that the signals were clearly visible. In addition, witness no. 40, Shri Ram Sundar, has stated that thore was no difficulty about seeing signals. Witness no. 42, Shri Sadhu Ram has stated: "I saw the signal from the sighting line," and later "the weather waa clear, the signals were clearly visible to me." It is, therefore, clear that the weather did not affect the visibility of signals on that date.

Braking Distance

32. Witness no. 60, Shri H. Q. Gordon, has stated: "If the track is not dry but there is moisture, then there will be some skidding of tho wheels even after

the full binding of the brakes takes place and there may be a difference of up to 50 per cent more in the distance takon for bringing the train to a dead stop than when dry". Later, he stated: "I know that on a rainy night I have to be more alert but my idea of 50 per cent may not be correct. I am not an Engineer and cannot give the distance correctly. I have not even measured it either". No precise data have been made available to the Commission indicating the effect of moisture on rails on the brakiDg distance. While 50 per cent is clearly a grossly exaggerated figure, it may be taken that there will be some variation up to 9- 10 per cent in tho distance required to bring the tram to a dead stop but that, in our opinion, makns no real differonco in thin case, as the conditions were known to the driver. There is also evidence that Shri Sadhu Ram had actually no diffi- culty in stopping the train on that particular night.

33. Witness no. 7, Shri L. D. Puri, told the Government Inspector of Rail- ways that he had 18 inohea of vaoiium in the gauge in his Brake Van and his train had no difficulty in stopping at tho required places en route. Witness no. 40, Shri Ram Sundar states: "On tho way from Delhi to Shahabad Markanda, we experienced no difficulty in stopping the train at any time on application of brakes." Shri Sadhu Ram states: "Up to Shahabad Markanda I did not ex- perience any difficulty in stopping my tram."

34. On the evidence, therefore, it ia dear that the rain and moisture on the rails did not affect the conditions ,so adversely as to affect the safe working of the train¹). On the evidoneo, therefore, we conclude that the weather conditions, i.e., the dew, moisture or r-iin, did not cams this accident either directly or indirectly.

Track

35. Defects in the track might have beon another possible cause of the acci- dent. But there is no evidence to iadioiitn any such defect. Witness no, 9., Shri MuHsadi Lai, has stated: "No coinpla'nts about the traok in this area wore reoeived during the months of November and December, 1957." Witness no. 13, Shri Chunni Lai, had inspected the track from Ambala to Kurukahetra on 28th December, 1957, with the Assistant Engineer and found no defect. Witness no. 12, Shri Devi Dayal stated; "I inspected tho track from Ambala up to Kurukshetra on 29th December, 1957. I did not detect any defeot." Witness no. 2, Shri P. C. Gupta, stated that 1 Up paased through safely. After the acci- dent, witness no. 10, Shri A. N. Sud, checked the gauge and cross level of the track up to 10') yards from tho up faoing point and found that they were correct.

36. Shri Chunni Lai also told the Government Inspector of Railways "Gauge and the cross lovold on either side of the point (facing point) and up to the damaged rails were checked and found correct." The evidence thus indi- cates nothing wrong with the track having been discovered either in the inspec- tions before tho aooident or by the driver of the train passing over the track immediately prior to tbe accident or evon on inspection of undamaged track after the accident.

Signalling

37, Tho learned counsel for Shri Sadhu Ram and Shri Ram Sunder has laid special stress on the unsatisfactory condition of signalling and interlocking

and theiT operation. He has specially referred to the testimony of Shri Hans Eaj Saini and Shri R. R. Mukerji in support of his allegations of signal failures at Mohri. Witness no. 25, Shri Hans Raj Saini, has given details of five cases of signal failure at Mohri. On 23rd September, 1956, the up outer signal could not be lowered as the signal chain plate was found broken. On 18th November, 1956, the down outer signal at Mohri could not be lowered as the down rod of the signal was broken. On 3rd January 1957, the up loop starter signal did not come off. The mistry, who attended, discovered no defect in the mechanism. On 5th January, 1957, the up outer signal at Mohri could not be lowered as the chain plate was found broken. On 3rd June 1957, the down outer signal was found defective, as the back-light of this signal was defective. Witness no. 27, Shri R. R. Mukerji, has stated that he twice inspected the signal and interlocking gear at Mohri and did not find any basic defects. Three defects occurred in the signal apparatus at Mohri. On 22nd October, 1957, the long down rod of the down loop home signal was found defective and the signal remained in the 'off' position. On 18th November 1957, the up loop line starter could not be lowered as the steel wire was broken. On 21st November, 1957, the outer signal could not be lowered as the gear was found disengaged. In addition, Shri Damodar Dayal's report mentions 2 moro cases. On 3rd January, 1957, the back light of the down outer signal was reported to be defective though the mistry on check found no defect. On 30th November 1957, tho Up loop starter could not bo lowered due to wire boing broken. The number of signal failures oannot be called excessive as these occurred in a period of sixteen months. Six of theso failures were duo to breakage of signal wire or signal chain plate or down rod of signal, | two were duo to defects in back lights, the ninth was due to gear becoming dis- engaged and, in tho tenth instance, no defect was discovered. The nature of these failures does not indicate any basic defect in the signalling installation at Mohri or any neglect in the maintenance of signalling and interlocking.

38. Shri Anthony has drawn special attention to improper operation of eignals. Shri E. Kirkma.n has stated that several times it happened that when a train was approaching, tho outer signal was raised. He had had one or two ex- periences of the outer and the home signals both going up as his train was approaching. Witness no. 60, Shri II. Q, Gordon, has stated that on 18th or 19th January, 1958, at Dhirpur, though the outer signal went back to danger, the home signal, which had been lowered for the Janata, remained lowered and did not go back to danger till jerks were given to the signal wire. Witness no. 56, Shri Raj Kishore Traffic Inspector, has stated that in the middle of 1957, he was travelling on the engine of 61 Up and when the engine was barely a few yards from the outer signal, the outer signal was raised. When l/3rd of the engine had passed the loop home signal, the home signal was also raised.

39. Witness no. 23, Shri Dhanpat Rai has mentioned a similar case whioh occurred on 1st September, 1957. Tho Divisional Operating Superintendent, Delhi in his report dated 14th February, 1958 to the Commission has reported only 2 cases—one of which has already been mentioned having been reported by Shri Raj Kishore. The second case occurred at Dhirpur on 23rd January, 1958 when the outer signal at Dhirpur was put back before the passage of 3 DU,

40. In case of any premature raising of the signals, the duty of the driver is clear that he must stop tho train. Instances of premature raising of the signals are, however, irrelevant for our purposes, as there is no plea that any signal was prematurely raised in this case.

Drooping Signal

41. 15 oases of signal arm drooping, whioh oocurred during 1957 on the Northern Railway, have also boon brought to our notice. In all these cases, only one signal was at fault. There is not a single case in which both the home and the outer signal arms in the 'off' position did not go back to the 'on' position, when the levers were pushed back. Thus these would be oases of contradictory signals and they do not suggest that any defect in the signal gear may have kept both the signals in the 'off' position on the night of the accident.

42. It is truo that possibly, in the beginning, the learned counsel appearing for the Railway adopted the position that there had been no failure of signalling instruments at Mohri. That is not so. Machines are subject to mechanical fail- ures and break down just as much as the human body is heir to many ills and diseases. The question before the Commission is not whether there had been any defects in the signalling gear at Mohri or elsewhere during the year 1957 or in the period subsequent to the accident. The only question before the Commis- sion is whether the defects have been BO excessive and frequent as to warrant the suggestion of Shri Anthony that this section is 'notorious for signal failures'. Even more than that, the question for the consideration of this Commission is whether there was any signalling defect on the day the accident occurred.

43. It is admitted by witness no. 16, ShriDamodar Dayal, and witness no. 58, Shri L.O. Mohindra, that tho outer signal can be lowered by pulling the wire. Witness no. 3, Shri Roshan Lai, has stated that there has been no case of con- flicting signals at his station. Shri Anthony has brought on to the record a re- port by Shri Barkat Ram. On 9th February, 1958 he saw the up outer signal at Mohri in the 'ON' position though the home signal and the starter signals had been lowered. In case of conflicting signals, the driver must stop his train. Witness no. 18, Shri 8. R. Paul, has stated that in the checks made by .him, he did not notice a single case of conflicting signals. He also inspected the lever frame after the accident and told the Government Inspector of Railways: "I had, in the meantime, observed that all fixed signals at the station were in the 'On' position. The back-lights of the outer and home signals in both directions were also clearly visible". Witness no. 19, Shri Durga Prasad Puri, has stated that there is no unusual incidence of signal failure on the Kurukshotra— Ambala Seotion.

44. Witness no. 25, Shri Hans Raj Saini has stated that ho used to inspect the signal and interlocking apparatus at Mohri at least once every month. Ho overhauled tho interlocking frame at Mohri on 5th April, 1957 and tested tho signal lever frame on that dato and again on 1st July, 1957. The next overhaul is due in 1960. He did not come across any cases of banio defect in the signal and interlocking apparatus at Mohri. Though he mentioned five cases of signal

failures at Mohri (already detailed above), he was quite satisfied with the working and maintenance of the interlocking apparatus over this section. The working on DelM—Ambala section compares favourably with his experience of the working on other sections Witness no. 27, Shri R. R. Mukerji stated that in his inspections of the signal and interlocking gear at Mohri, he did not find any basic defect OT basic deficiency. He is satisfied with the maintenance and performance of the signalling gear on this section.

45. Wo have already referred to the evidenee of witness no. 16, Shri Damo- dar Dayal, witness no. 25, Shri H. R. Saini, and witness no. 27, Shri R. R. Mukerji. Witness no. 58, Shri L. C, Mohindra told the Government Inspector of Railways that he inspected and tested the interlocking system—the inter- locking frame, the interlocking key box and the key transmitters on 4th Jan- uary, 1958 and found them in correct condition.

46. As against this, Shri Arjan Singh stated in his statement to the Govern- ment Inspector of Railways that in his opinion the crack in the cover of the key lock of the trap appeared to be an old one. Witness no. 67, Cpl. Kulwant Singh has stated that he heard a railway worker tell Shri R. C. Srivastava, Signal Inspector, Rajpura that for the last 4 month;:, they had been reporting that it was cracked and no body had taken any action. Wo are unable to attach any weight to this evidence. Tho interlocking gear had boon inspected a little before the aocident and then no defect had been found. But even taking that tho crack had been in existence since four months, it would not affect the working of the trap point, and the signal mechanism."

47. Tho evidence of witness no. 2, Shri P. C. Gupta, witness no. 5, Sbri Chela Ram, witness no. 19, Shri D. P. Puri, witness no. 21, Shri Ram Prasad, witness no. 25, Shri H. R. Saini, witness no. 58, Shri L. C. Mohindru and witness no. 64, Shri M. A. Rao, indicatos that there have been no cases of droop- ing signals. Shri M. A. Rao also saw tho signals after the accident and he did not observe any drooping of the signals. Witness no. 2, Shri P. C. Gupta and witness no, 5, Shri Chela Ram saw the back lights of the signals. The signals had been put back after passage of 1 Up. Witness no, 7, Shri L. D. Puri, Guard of 45 Up stated that he saw the back lights of the home and the outer signals. This means that theTe were no drooping signals. Witness no. 18, Shri S, R. Paul stated that the backlights of the signals were clearly visible. Witness no. 21, Shri Ram Prasad, driver of 1 Up stated that there had been no case of droop- ing signal within the last 12 months. Witness no. 40, Shri Ram Sundar has stated that no signal was drooping on that day. Witness no. 42, Shri Sadhu Ram has also stated that no signal was drooping. This leads us to the conclu- sion that there was no history of drooping or contradictory signals at Mohri. Tho signalling and interlocking installation at Mohri had no basic defect and could not have caused this accident.

48. The up outer signal at Mohri h visible from a distance of 2,235 feet from that signal. The up home signal is visible from a point 3,300 feet south of that signal.

49. The evidence of witness no. 18, Shri S. R. Paul, witness no. 19, Shri Durga Prasad Puri, witness no. 25, Shri Hans Raj Saini, witness no. 45, Shri Himmat Singh, is to the effect that there have been no complaints in respect of visibility of signals and that officers are satisfied with the condition of the

visibility. Witness no. 61, Shri A. T. Kirkman has stated that in December, 1956, he reported that the up outer signal at Mohri was not visible from an adequate distance at night. Now the position is that he can see the outer signal only when he has crossed the sighting line and has gone 200 yards past it. The home signal is visiblo 20 to 30 yards after the outer signal becomes visible. The up outer Mohri signal is not visible from the sighting mark during night, but during the day it is visible from that line. From the evidence of this witness it would appoar that both the outer and home signals at Mohri on the up side are visible from an adequate distance oven at night. There is no complaint of poor visibility by witness no. 40, Shri Ram Sundar, and witness no. 42, Shri Sadhu Ram. It is, therefore, olear that both the up outer and up home signals are visible from an adequate distance. Thus any deficiency in the visibility of these signals was not the cause of this accident.

50. In the arguments before us Shri Anfchony suggested that the up signals had been lowered for 45 Up Janata in the normal course. Subsequently the assistant station master had to receive 2 DU. He, therefore, put back theae signals to danger but though the levers were pushed back the signals did not go back to danger. This suggestion was not put to any of the witnesses examined before the Commission or before the Government Inspector of Railways. It is not established that any such difficulty was experienced afi-cr the passage of 1 Up. There is no evidence to suggest that any signals were lowered for the Janata before the 2 DU was received at Mohri. Witness no. 2, Shri P. C. Gupta has stated that he saw the back lights of the signals. He could see the back lights only if the signal arms had in fact gone up. Witness no. 4, Shri Sham Lai, Pointsman working on Shahabad Markanda side stated before the Government Inspector of Railways that no signals were lowered on tho Up sido and he could see the back lights. Before the Commission also he stated that he saw the back lights of thoso signals at the time 2 DU had berthed. Witness no. 0, Shri Chela Ram has statod that the signals were put back to danger after the passage of 1 Up- lie is also dofinite that no loop line signals were lowered for the Janata. The Guard of 45 Up Janta—witness no. 7, Shri Lachman Das Puri states that after the acoident he noticed that both tho outer and the homo signals were at danger. Witness no. 20, Shri Ram Prakash told the Government Inspector of Railways that when 2 DU came to stop, reception signals for the Janata were not lowered, There is no evidence of any defects in the signalling gear having been removed immediately after the accident. There is no evidence that any wires were cut. Some of the witnesses suggest that the signals were put back to danger immediately after the accident. Thus there is no reason to suspect the existence of any conditions in which the up signals may have refusod to go back to danger. The evidence clearly indicates that they were put baok to danger after 1 Up had passed through. 2 DCJ was received after 1 Up. It, therefore, follows that the levers must have been pushed back to put the up signals at danger. There was no difficulty in pushing back these signals to danger either after tho passage of 1 Up or immediately after the accident. We, therefore, in tho absenoo of any evidence, find no sufficient reason for accepting the theory that though the levers had been pushed back to raise the signals on tho up side in order to lower the signals on the down side for reception of 2 DU, the signals, in faot did not go baok to danger.

Condition of Engine and Coaching Stock

51. The engine of 45 Up Janata was examined by witness no. 35, Shri Mehar Chand at 9 P.M. on 31st December, 1957 and found in good working order. Shri Sadhu Ram, driver of that train also carried out his examination before starting the train and found no defect.

52. The rake of 45 Up Janata except four bogies was examined by Shri Jai Kishen, witness no. 38. He carried out testa in regard to vacuum, piston travel, brake blocks etc. He had three bogies detached, out of whioh two were due for periodical overhaul. The roformed rake was again examined and tested by witness no. 39, Shri Yash Pal Kaushal, Train Examiner, Delhi. Thero were no coaches due for periodical overhaul on the rake of 45 Up Janata as it left Delhi station.

53. The condition of the engine and of the coaohes of 45 Up Janata was good when the train left Delhi,

Headlight

54. No one has urged that there was any difficulty with the headlight of the engine of 45 Up or that the track in front could not be Been for an adequate distance.

Speed

55. There maybe difficulty in accurately assessing the speed of a train. But such difficulty has no bearing on the present accident. Witness no. 45, Shri Himmat Singh has stated that the Janata engine was fitted with a speedometer in working order. It, therefore, cannot be suggested that in the absence of a speedometer the driver was unable to judge the speed.

PHYSICAL FITNESS OF STAFF

(i) Assistant Station Master

66. Shri P. C. Gupta was Assistant Station Master on duty at Mohri from 11 p.m. on 31st December, 1957. There ia no suggestion that he was not in proper health. He attended to his duties in respect of several trains—

1DU which ran through at 23-19 hours. 33 Up whioh ran through at 1-35 hours. 2Dn Mail which ran through at 2-27 hours. 34 Dn. which ran through at 3-07 hours. 1 Up which ran through at 3-38 hours. 46 Dn waB also attended to on that night.

This is in addition to obtaining line clear for the two trains that were involved in the accident.

57. Shri P. C. Gupta must have contacted the control and the two stations on either side for each of the six trains. There is thus no ground for holding that he was not attending to his duties or was asleep. Thera is no suggestion that he was in any manner intoxicated. In the course of his arguments, Shri Anthony has urged that "it is a notorious fact that station masters and assistant station masters particularly on a morning such as this when it is bitterly cold and driz-

zling, allow their watermen and their poinbemen to do their work for them". For this conclusion Shri Anthony has relied on two testimonies. Shri Raj Kishore does mention a caso of the signals being raised prematurely but, accord- ing to him, Shri Om Parkash, who was assistant station master on duty, was questioned by him and ho kopt quiet. Witness no. 23, Shri Dhanpat Rai stated that on 1st September, 1957 the outer signal was prematurely raised. Ho saw the assistant station master threatening and abusing the pointsman. He further stated that ho questioned the assistant station master and received a reply. It does not appear to us that either of the two inoidontw support the con- clusion desired by Shri Anthony that the assistant station masters do not attend to their duties on cold nights. In both the incidents mentioned by him, the assistant station master appears to have been on the platform and, in any case, on neither occasion was it raining or cold. There is no evidence of any. in- ability or incapacity of the assistant station master to properly attend to his duties.

(ii) Driver

58. Shri Sadhu Ram admits that he had full rest before he came on duty on 45 Up.

59. The evidenoe of witness no. 7, Shri L. D. Puri, witness no. 37, Shri H. W. Farmer, and witness no. 43, Dr. B. S. Monga sufficiently indicates that Sadhu Ram is been and efficient in the discharge of his duties, does not smoke or drink and was sober at tho time of the accident. Witness no. 45, Shri Himmat Singh states that Shxi Sadhu Ram qualified as a driver in 1933 and as a Pas- penger Driver 7 years ago. During this time, he has been punished only twice. He was censured in 194], the reason is not evident. On 2nd July, 1956, six months stoppage of privileges was directed as ho started 31 Up Frontier Mail without observing the guard's proceed signal. Thus thore should have beon no incapacity on the part of Shri Sahdu Ram to porform his duties properly. There is only one incapacity to which we make no reference at this stage. We will revert to the use of spectacles subsequently. We, however, add that tests indicate that there is no inherent defect with his vision if he uses proper glasses.

60. To sum up this part of the Report, we are of the opinion that this acci- dent was not caused by sabotage, weather conditions, track defect, defects in signalling system or signalling gear or any defeob in the engine, and the rake or even any incapacity on the part of the staff concerned unless that incapacity was induced by tho use of speotacles by Shri Sadhu Ram.

PART III—DISCUSSION OF EVIDENCE

Signals lowered or not

61. Having considered the possible causes, whioh do not apply to the facts of the present case, we are, as stated earlier, left with two oases. The case for the assistant station master, plain and simple, ia that he did not lower the signals for 45 Up Janata. Tho points had been set for the loop lino and the trap had been closed on both the 'Up' side and 'down' side for reception of 2 DU from Ambala side. Before arrangements could be made for reception of 45 Up

Janata and at the time when the trap on the Up side had been locked iu the open position but before tho facing points could be sit for the main lino and prior to tho signals being lowered for the incoming Janata,, that train oame through against signals, passed the facing points which were sot for the loop line, trailed through the open looked trap point and collided with the stationary 2 DU.

62. On the other hand, tho case for Sim Sadhu Ram and Shri Ram Sunder is that the signals were lowered for 45 Janata. They assert that the up outer and up loop home signals were lowered for them and the train entered the station on the authority of these signals.

It is these two cases which call for olose analysis by us.

63. We will first consider the circumstantial evidence, fpr it is oommon experience that circumstances once established will give a positive indications as to the truth whereas witnesses examined orally may change their statements or make particular statements in order to help particular persons.

Time of Accident

64. In the notification appointing this Commission, tho time of the acci- dent is mentioned as 4-17 A.M. Witness no. 1, Shri Santoo, pointsman, Ambala Bido has stated that when he was going to the down facing point he heard the crash. This means that the accident occurred within 2—3 minutes of tho arrival of 2 DU and supports the statement of Shri Sham Lai as to what ho was actually doing when tho Janata cams in. Witness no. 2, Shri P. C. Gupta gives the timo of accident as 4-16 A.M. Shri S. R. Paul, has stated that the Control told him at 4-17 A.M. of the accident. The statement of Shri Ram Pra- kash, witness no. 20, that the accident occurred 6—7 minutes after the arrival of 2 DU, is, in our opinion, not entitled to any credence. He now states that he had completed the repairs. He appears to have told the Government Inspector of Railways that he was actually carrying out repairs when the oollision occurred. Shri Ratan Singh, witness no. 44, has stated that the accident occurred within two to three minutes of the arrival of 2 DU, but ho now states that tho accident occurred barely one minute after the arrival of that train. Relying mainly on the report by the Control Office, we conclude that the aooident actual- ly occurred at 4-16 A.M. and not at 4-17 A.M.

Arrival of 2 DU

65. Shri P. C. Gupta states that 2 DU arrived at Mohri at 4-13 A.M. Shri Santoo, witness no. 1 and Shri Sham Lai, witness no. 4, have stated that they had barely opened the traps and were going to thn facing points when the acci- dent occurred. Shri Basant Singh, witnoss no. 6, has stated that 2 DU arrived at Mohri at 4-13 A.M. Considerable stress has been laid on the oontradiotion between the time of departure from Ambala shown in the guard's journal and the statement of Shri Som Dev. But we find that tho Control chart at Delhi indicates that five minutea were lost by 2 DU in travelling from Ambala to Mohri. The time of arrival, as mentioned in the chart at Delhi, is 4-13 A.M. Witness no. IT, Shri Jamiat Rai has also stated that 2 DU left at 3-55 hours after 1 Up had been received at Ambala at 3 • 50 hours. We are unable to attach ' any considerable weight to the difference as to the time of departure from

Ambala. The evidence as to tho time of arrival at Mohri is consistent and we see no reason to doubt it. Wo have found no supporb for the suggestion that the time of arrival shown in the Mohri register has been altered. We accept that 2 DU arrived at Mohri at 4-13 hours.

66, Witness no. 2, Shri P. 0. Gupta has stated that he obtained the line cleat for Janata at 4-1G A.M. This statement is supported by witness no. 8, Shri Som Dev, There ia no contradiction of this evidence. This is an important piec" of evidence, inasmuch as it is very improbable that the assistant station master would think of passing the Janata through Mohri station before he had obtainod the line clear from Ambala. This is also corroborated by the consistent evidence of witness no. 1, Shri Santoo, witness no. 2, Shri P. G. Gupta, witness no. 4, Shri Sham Lai, witness no. 7, Shri L. D. Puri and •witness no. 40, Shri Ram Sundar to the effect that no torches were lighted for passing through the Janata Express. The evidence of theso witnesses indicates that the preparations for receiving Janata were not complete. Things, which immediately follow the lowering of the outer and the home signals, had not boen dono and this does suggest tho inference that the signals had not been lowered for the Janata.

67. To receive the Janata Express the Station Master had to:—

(i) Satisfy himself of tho complete arrival of 2 DU.

(ii) Put tho down outor and the down loop home signals back to danger. (in) Extract key no. 28 from tho signal lever and apply it in the key box in his office,

(iv) Extract keys no. 33 and 35 from the key box and transmit them to tho pointsmen.

(v) Report arrival of 2 DU to Ambala Cantt. and obtain line dear for 45 Up on the token instrument,

(vi) The pointsmen had to extract the key, walk up to the trap points (287 feot on the Ambala side and 290 feet on tho Delhi side), apply them to the treble locks and sot the traps in the opon position by pulling the lover and then to lock them by turning key no. 35 and extracting key no. 53,

(vii) The pointsmen had to walk from the trap back to tho facing points near their goomities, apply key no. 53 in tho treble lock, pull the lever and extract key no. 31.

(mii) Eaoh pointsman had then to transmit key no. 31 to the Station Master on duty.

(ix) The Station Master had to oxtraot both keys no. 31 from the trans- mitters, insert and turn them in the key box in his office and extract up home main key no. 25.

(tf) Key no. 25 had to be i^erted and turned in tho lock in the signal lever frame and then the up main home and the up outer signals could be taken off by pulling the relevant levers.

After that the Station Master would mako arrangements for giving the line clear token to the train running through, arrange for lighting of two torches and arrange to lower up main line starter signal.

M/B(D)1C8GI—2

68. In t}ie time table, 5 minutes aro provided for all this woilc. We also know that 2 DU did not leave Ambalu before 3-55 A.M., i.e., full 5 minutes after blie arrival of 1 Up. The same procoas had to be undergone tit Ambala Oantt. Witness no. 2, Shri P. 0, (Jupta ha^i stated that he tnkos 5 minutes to arrange for crossing of trains. Witness no. 14, Shri Hari Singh, assistant station master, Shahabad Markanda has stated that in normal working there is no difficulty in crossing trains within 5 minutes time provided, but one has to move about quickly in order to arrange for crossing the trains during 5 minutes' time provided. As the accident occurred within 3 minutes of the arrival of 2 DU, it follows that full arrangements could not possibly have been made for passing through the Janata Express on the main line as had been directed by the Con- trol at Delhi.

69. We curried out experiments on the spot and found that in the 3 minutes time intervening between the arrival of 2 DU and the accident, the Assistant Station Master could not have performed all the operations necessary for lower- ing signals for the Janata for its passage on the main line. These experiments also confirm that lie could have performed all tho operations which he says he actually did in order to be able to lower main line si nals for the Janata, which process had not till then been completed.

70. Further experiments carried out by us clearly indicate that in tho time intervening between the arrival of the 2 DU and tho accident, the poinstman on the Shahabad Markanda side could have performed only the operations which ho states h" did and ho could not have completed all the operations neces- sary to enable him to transmit tho key to the station master without which the signals could not have been lowered for the main line. These experiments also conclusively show that at the stage to which the pointsman had reached, no signals for any line could have been lowered for tho Janata Express.

Position of Facing Point

71. The evidence indicates that tho facing points were sot for the loop line.

Witness no. 15, Shri It. 0. Srivastava saw the facing point set for the main but he made the inspection at 11 '05 A.M. The other witnesses Shri L. D. Puri Shri A. N. Sud, Shri Chunni Lai and Shri S. R. Paul havo stated that the facing points wore sot for the loop and witness no. 15 Shri R. 0. Srivastva, witness no. 16, Shri Damodar Dayal and witness no. 58, Shri L. C. Mohindra have stated that no damage was caused to the facing point. This corroborates tho assertion that tho facing points wore set for the loop.

Trap Lock

72. Witness no. 4, Shri Sham Lai states that he gave key no. 03, to the assistant station master, who handed it over to the station master, Shri Roshan Lai. There is contradiction as to whether key no. 53 was in the station safe at tho time it was takon over by Shri Roshan Lai or whether it was in Shri Roahan Lai's pocket and was handed over to tho Assistant Traffio Superinten- dent, Sliri S. R. Paul. But the Commission is unable to attach any considerable weight to this as tho only question for its determination is whether key no. 53 was in tho trap lock or outside it. It ia conceded that key no. 53 could have been taken out of the trap lock even after the accident provided the trap

was locked in tho open position. If th

Damage to Trap Points

73. Tho damage to tho trap point haa been described by several witnesses. We will refer only to the evidence of witnassos, who actually examined the damage Witn^s no. 13, ShriChunni Lai has stated that point K-3 was burst and the tongue rail was pushed towards the stock rail. The tongue rail was bent and twisted and a piece at the toe was broken. Tho cottor of tho plug pin fixed inside the rod loading to the lock had sheared. The plug pin was entangled betwoen the switch and the stock rails. Tho rod leading to the lover was bent and tho cast iron bracket fixed on the post of the trap point indicator had bro- ken and had fallen down along the rod revolving the disc. The too of the tongue rail waa about $ inch, open at that time. Witness no. 19, Shri D. P. Puri, has stated that before the tongue rail was clamped by him, there was a gap between the tongue rail and the stock rail of about half an inch. Witness no. 3, Shri Roshan Lai, and witness no, 7, Shri L. D. Puri saw tho damage but have-not given details. WitneBB no. 10, Shri A. N. Sud states that the trap had been burst. The trap indicator was showing 2/3rd red and the point portion of the tongue tail was broken to a length of 3 to 3J inches and tho tongue rail was twisted to th" extent of lj inches. He also noticed a gap of 3/8 inch between the tongue rail and the stock rail. The cottor on the goose neck rod had been sheared, at two places and the pin had alao come out and fallen. The locking bar of the trap was alao bent. The revolving rod of the trap indicator disc had fallen down. The pivot of tha trap indicator had also broken. This witness reached the scene at 6 A.M.

74. Witness no. 18, Shri S. R. Paul also saw tho damage. The other wit- nesses reached lat". Shri M.A, Rao, Divisional Superintendent, witness no. 64, reached the aite of the trap at 10-30 hrs. He found that tho awitch was kinked slightly and its head was tilted over somewhat towards the stock rail, so that the toe of ita flanga waa lifted by about 3/8 inoh at its extremity. The tip of the switch had broken off, the size of the broken piece being 3J inches X 3/8 inoh. There were also fresh marka on the inside of the head of the switch rail whioh appearod to have been oaused by tho flanges of the wheels rubbing hard against it. In the interlocking gear, ho noticed that the swan neok connecting rod between tho stretcher bar of bhe lock and the derailing switch was bent and the cottor pin fastening it to tho switch rail had come off as it had been sheared through. The cottor pin and the five pieces of split cottor were lying on the ground. The two goose neok connecting rods leading from the switch to the trap point indi- cator and the hand-lever respectively wero bent at the goose necks. The oast- iron bracket of the trap point indicator was broken and the connecting rod had oome out of its sooket,

75. Sliri Anthony's objection if) that the look of tho trap point was damaged since before and therefore no positive conclusion can be drawn from the damage to the trap point. The only evidence in support is that of witness no. 67, Cor- poral Kulwant Singh and Shri Arjan Singh, We can nee no force in this conten- tion as the evidence refers only to o, erack in the cover of the lock and not to any defect in the lock itself. The lock had been functioning properly up to this acci- dent and had been inspected by officers a little before tho accident.

76. All this damage indicates that the trap had been burst and had been trailed through.

77. Witness no. 9 Shri Mussadi Lai has stated that as the trap was open, no signals could have been lowered fox the Janata, that the damage could have been caused by a train, coming only from Sahabad Markanda side. Any move- ment from the Mohri side would load to a derailment and not to damage to tho trap point. Witness no. 16, Shri Damndar Dayal has stated that with the trap open, the signals could not be lowered for the Janata Express, From the damage to the signalling gear alone, he is definite that the trap was locked open. We do not refer to tho opinion of Shri Himmat Singh, as ho did not aotually see the damage. Witness no. 58, Shri L. C. Mohindra stated that there would have been no damage if the trap was in the open free position. Witness no, 05, Shri R. G. Bhatwadakor has stated that the damage would be caused by a train moving forward if the trap was in the open locked position. Tho kind of the damage, he saw, could not have been caused, by the backward movement of the rake of the train involved in tho collision. He has given reasons for his opinion and the reasons appear to us sound. Shearing of the split cottor could have been caused only by application of a force of 7 • 2 tons. The tip of the tongue rail could have been fractured only by applying a force of 16 • 5 tons. The assembly of the wheels and the axle being a rigid assembly could exe^t a force of about 900 tons. He has also stated that if tho tongue rail is locked in the closed position, no damage could have been caused. In tho free open position the backward movement of the rake would not cause this kind of damage. If it was in the free olosed posi- tion, the damage caused by forward movement would be negligible or nil.

78. The damage to the signal gear actually observed in this case could be caused only as the bogie wheels of the engine would exert considerable pressure in ord^r to accommodate themselves, between the rails and the 4J inches opening would have to be forcibly reduced to provide that accommodation. That pressure would be considerably more than that required for splitting the cottor pin or breaking off the tip of the switch rail.

79. From all this evidence, it is clear to the Commission that the trap must have been in the locked open position. If the trap was locked in the closed posi- tion, there will be no damage either by the forward or backward movement of the Janata. If the trap was unlocked and free, then whether it was half olosed or fully open, the switch rail would be easily pushed back by the bogie wheels of engine of 45 Up Janata.

Conclusion from Damage to Trap Point

80. The damage to the trap inevitably leads to the conclusion that it was locked in the open position. We also know that.the up facing points were set for

the loop lino. The Commission unhesitatingly comes to the irresistible conclusion that the signals for tho Janata could not have been loworod cither for the up main line or for the up loop line.

Speed Restriction

81. There is a restriction of speed over the main line in tho Moliri station yard. The speed is rostrictod to 30 miles per hour on the main lino; over tho loop line there is a restriction of 10 miles per hour.

82. Braking distance testa wero carried out. The results aro tabulated below:-

Spood A

Test conducted by

30 MPH

40 MPH

41 MPH

20 25 MP1I MPH

45 MPH

1,364

.. 465 feet 611 i

:eot

feot

• *

Commission

on the straight 459 feut including the turn out.

1/227

.. 408 feet . 837 feet

feet

Chief Mooh. Engr.

544 foet . 998 feet 1,674

Divl. Mech. Engr.

feet

Graph prepared by Shri K. C. Lall

440 foet . 745 feet

1,520 feot

83. On tho basis of this information, tho Commission fools that the fair conclusions as to' braking distances would be —

Braking distance

Spoed

540 foet.

20 MPH

650 foefc.

25 MPH

900 feot.

30 MPH

1400 feot.

40 MPH

1600 foot,

45 MPH

84. These experiments were not carried out on wet rails. On wet rails the braking distance should be about 9 per rent more for a speed of 20 MPH and 2 per cent more for -15 iVIPH. As already stated the fact of the wet rails was within the information of the driver and lie should have controlled his train ac- cordingly when approaching the station.

2 DU Pushed back

85. The evidence of witness no. 1, Sliri Santoo, •witness no. 2, Shri P. C. Gupta and witness no. 6, Sliri Basant Singh, indicates that when the 2 DU was standing at the platform its engine was just, outside the platform on the south side and the tail lamp within a, few feet of the fencing on the platform on. the Ambala side.

86. The positions of the bogies and the engines were marked by witness no. 10, Shri A. N. Sud and witness no. 11, Shri A. N. Sharma. On the basis of this, from the place where the front bogie wheels of the engine of 2 DU were found and the place whore the front part of the engine of 2 DU was, it is clear that the 2 DU was pushed back 90 feet. To this muHt be added a further distance of 5 feet to allow for the oet back of the front bogie wheels of the engine of 2 DU from its buffers. It is thus clear that the front bogie wheels of 2 DU which had its brakes 'on' were pushed back 95 feet.

Janata not Pushed Bach

87. Thoro in no evidence of the rako of 45 Up Janata being pushed back as a result of the accident. Witness no. 28, Shri 9. M. A shri, witness no. 29, Rhri Bachiter Singh, witness no. 32 Shri Joginder Singh and witness no. 33, Shri Khushal Singh have not montioned any backward movement of the Janata. The pushing of the Janata as a result of the recoil is also not likely. The force of the impact was mainly spent in pushing back the engine and the rake of 2 DU. It would also be absorvod by the brakes of 15 Up Janata. We have also evidence to indicate that the engine of 45 Up Janata was derailed and the two front bogies wero completely smashed. The rails underneath were distorted. Thus there would be no means of communicating the recoil, if any, to the other bogies of the Janata. The Commission, therefore, arrives at the conclusion that, the rear bogies of the Janata were not pushed back. Tlus concluoion would be important in discussing the suggestion whether the trap could have bcon damaged by any baokward movement of the rake of 45 Up Janata.

Damage to the Trains

88. The front ond of the smoke box of the engine of 45 Up wan badly bashed in. Its front buffer beam and front engine drag casting, cow catcher, engine buffer lamps and head light wero completely smashed. The engine frame, two piston rodfl, two side motion plates, left trailing side rod were bent. The bogie yoke and the engine stretcher plate were badly bent. The two engines were en- tangled aa a result of tho collision and boih were de;ailed. Tho tender tank of the engine of Janata wan badly damaged at the rear. Tho smoke box door and the head light of 2 DU engine were smashed. The tender drag box casting, both cylinders and front covers and the main frame on both the sides were damaged. The axles of the bogie wheels were bent. The buffer beams and the motion pinto brackets were damaged. The cab roof of the engine was completely torn off.

89. In addition, two front bogies of 45 Up Janata were completely smaphed. The two head stocks of the third bogie of 45 Up Janata, buffors and bolster spring* were broken. The 4th and the oth bogios had both ends head stock bent at buffers and diagonal bars bent. The Oth, 7thand 8th bogies recei v d no damage, being HAL bogies. The 9th and the 10th bogies had eatu ono nead Btoek badly

bent. So far as the rake of 2 DU is concerned, it was pushed baok and the first bogie was completely unwished; about half of the second bogio was completely damaged. The other bogies were not damaged. Comparatively the rake of 2 DU reoeivod less damage as the whole rake was pushed back some distance and the main force of the impact was taken by the engine and tho first one and a half bogies which were (smashed. It appears that tho rear bogies of 45 Up Janata received damage only because they were surging forward.

Speed of Janata

90. The amount of the damage gives an indication of tho speed. Tho 2 DU should have been visible to the driver of 45 Up from a distance of 1,148 feet as observed by the Commission in the experiments carried out by it. It is admitted that Shri Sadhu Ram saw the engine of 2 DU when he came on to the faoing point, i.e. from a distance of approximately 650 feet. If the train was then travelling at 20 miles an hour, there could have been no damage; aa the train could have been brought to a dead stop. From the amount of the damage, the Commission has been unable t J avoid the irresistible conclusion that the speed of the Janata at the time of impact was in the order of 30 miles an hour and possibly even more. Witness no. 4, Shri Sham Lai has stated that the speed of the Janata was that of a run-through train. Shri Chela Ram, witness no. 5 saya that the speed was pretty fast. Witness no. 7 Shri L. D. Puri has stated that at the time the Janata enters the yard, tho speed was not more than 25 to 30 miles an hour and the speed at tho time of collision was 25 to 30 rnilos an hour. Witness no. 40 Shri Ram Sunder has stated that the speed at the time of collision was 15 to 20 miles an hour. From the arguments advanoed by Shri Anthony it is clear that the speed at the time of oollision was not different from the speed on the faoing points. Shri Sadhu Ram has not been able to explain why the train did not stop if the speed at the faoing point was 20 miles an hour. Witness no. 45, Shri Himmat Singh has expressed the opinion that tho speed at the time of collision was more than 10 miles an hour as there would be only minor damage to the engine, if the speed at the time of impact w;is 10 miles an hour. Witness no. 63, Shri K. C. Lall has given reasons for his opinion that the speed at the time of collision was about 40 milos an hour. He has stated that for the force needed to push back the engine of 2 DU a distance of 90 feet alone, the speed at the time of collision should have beon 19-7 miles an hour. In fact this engine was pushed back 95 feet.

91. Considering the other damage and tho momentum lost by the braking of 45 Janata and its ploughing tn trough the formation, it follows that tho speed at the time of the collision must have been much in excess of 20 miles an hour. This conclusion is also arrived at by witness no. 64, Shri M. A. Rao. Witness no. 66, Shri A. K. Gupta, who has experience of previous aooidents, has given the opinion that the speed at the time of collision must have been 35 miles an hour. Taking these opinions into consideration and particularly thn amount of force necessary to push the 2 DU back a distance of 95 feet and then making allowance for all the damage done to tho engines, rakes and tho permanent ;vay, the Commission cannot avoid the inference that the speed of the Janata at the time of tho impaot must have been in the order of 30 miles an hour at leant.

Driver s Spectacles

92. The evidence indicatoa that Shri Sadhu Rara usoa spectacles. Ho haa tiro seta, one for reading and the other for long distanoe. Tt is admitted that ho oannot use the reading glasses for long distance work. His case is that he put on the reading glasses for doing writing work and had been promptly taking them off, and putting on his long distance glasses. This is contradicted by the statements of both the firemen, according to the whom, the driver had bo an putting on only one pair of glasses all the way from Delhi. The Commission does not come to any definite conclusion on this evidence. Shri Sadhu Ram did some writing work and it is possible he was putting on his reading glasses when approaching Mohri station, and was, therefore, unable to look at the signals himself, and depended on his firemen to give him information, aa to whether they were down or not. There is some contradiction as to whether the driver had ihouted "alright" to Shri Ram Sundar. Thn Commisaion doea not attach any importance to that contradiction.

Suggested Hurry

93. It has been suggested that Shri Sadhu Ram was in a hurry to take the train to Ambala in order to catch the earlier train for Saharanpur. It is in evidence that he had directed his fireman to collect the tools soon after leaving Shahabad Markanda. The Commission is unable to agree that there are • 100 tools in the driver's box or that 20 to 25 minutes would be required for collection of those tools. The Commission, however, does not attach any consi- derable importance to this suggested hurry on the part of Shri Sadhu Ram and does not consider the evidence on this point of paramount importance.

94. We have dealt with the evidence of circumstances and have held (i) that the time between the arrival of 2 DU and the time of the accident was too short for the lowering of the main line signals for the Janata, and (ii) that the damage done aa a result of this accident clearly indicates that the speed at the time of the impact must have been in the order of 30 miles per hour, and (Hi) that the damage to the trap clearly indicates that it must have been in opon locked position at the time 45 Up Janata passed over it. The Commission is of the riew that there was no possibility of any of the up signals having been lowered.

Oral Evidence

95. We proceed to discuss the oral evidence as to whether the signals were lowered or not.

96. Witness no. 28, Shri S. M. Aalui was in a bogie 2 or 3 bogies in front of bogie no. 4225 in whioh his Professor was. He saw the outer signal lowered when he was 50 to 60 yarda from it and saw the Up-loop home signal groen when he was 200 feet from that signal. After getting down, be looked back and saw that in one of the signal arms the light was white and in the other there was no light. The signal was 30 to 40 yards behind him. He made mention of this to the representative of the "Tej" daily. Witness no. 29, Bachitar Singh states that one window of his compartment was open. He was in a bogie 3 or 4 bogies in front of the Professor's bogie. Witness no. 31, K. S. Dhaliwal waa standing and putting on trousers. He felt one jerk and then tho train stopped.

Shri S. M. Ashri pointed out the signal to him. It was 20 feet behind him. He noticed one light and heard ft noise and Raw the signal going up 2-3 minutes after the accident. Shri S. M. Ashri told him that the train had stopped though the signal was down and they mentioned this fact to tho Professor. Witness no. 30, Shri Ram Saran Dass stated that all tho windows of the compartment were shut as it was really cold. Shri S. M. Ashri told them that the train had derailed and showed him the signal in the down position. The signal was half a bogie behind them. The witness did not see any light on tho signals but could see one signal arm down. Ho did not see the signal being raised and did not hoar any one say how the accident had occurred. Witness no. 31, Shri K. S. Dhaliwal was standing in the bath-room tying hk turban and looking,in the mirror. When Shri 8. M. Ashri was asked the cause of the stopping of the train, he replied that he did not know. The signal was forty feet behind them and 2/3rd of the train was behind tho signals. He does not remember any light on the signal arms but saw the-signal arm in the murky darkness. Witness no. 32, Joginder Singh got down two or three minutes after the collision and saw the signal 30 feet away. One signal was down but ho saw no light and he oould not see tho other signal. Witness no. 33, Professor Khushal Singh states that he was in bogie no. 4225. His .students told him nothing as to the cause of the accident, though he heard them talking among themselves about tho signal being down.

97. There are obvious defects in this evidence. There are contradictions ae to whethor the Professor was told that tho signal was down, as to the distance the signal was from the place from where the students saw it, whether 2/3rd of the train was behind the signal and the last bogie of 45 Up was 5-6 bogies behind the home signal. The witnesses differ as to whether there was any enquiry by Shri S. M. Ashri if his companions had seon the signal down and they had told him that they had seen it being raised. There is also contradiction as to whether one of the windows of the compartment was open, where Shri K. S. Dhaliwal was and what he was doing, whether Shri S. M. Ashri pointed out the signal to his companions and whether there was any light in any of the signal arms. Thero is contradiction as to whether Shri S. M. Ashri told his companions a3 to why tho train had stopped, i.e. whether it had derailed as mentioned by witness no. 30, Shri Ram Saran Dass or merely that it had stopped though the signals were down as stated by witness no. 29, Shri Bachitar Singh.

98. The night was dark and it is difficult to accept that any one oould have, from the place where tho students w&rs, noticed a sigual in the down position as the baok light of the signal would be fully obstructed if the signal was in the down position. There are some ridicukms foatures about Shri S. M. Aiihri's statement also. There is no reason why he should have been so keen to get down before Arnbala. It is difficult to believe that he would switoh on two fans and no one in the oompartment would be able to put them off. It was a cold night but still he was unnecessarily leaning oub of the door even though he had no covering. He had moved away from tho seat near the right door as the fans were working but he again comos back noar the same door and peeps out. He says that he could aeo a light below tho signal and did not realise that collision had taken place. All these students got back into the compartment. Ordinarily such evidence is not entitlod to any weight because of the numerous contradictions and absurdities. We cannot, however, lose sight of the faot that

Shri 9. M. Ashri did tell the representative of the 'Tej' on 1-1-1958 that he had seen the signals in the lowered condition. He also appears to have made a similar statement to his Professor on 8-1-1958. The difficulty is that we know for definite that the whole of Janata was within the home signal and there is no light visible in a lowered home signal. Now these students saw a green signal from the place where they were is not expkined. According to the Railway's case, there was not a single green signal within sight. All the Up signals were red in. front and white at back and so were all the Down signals inoluding starters.

99. Next we come to the three witnesses who were on the engine. Witness no. 40, Ram Sundar says that from a distance of one telegraph post he saw the outer signal in the down position and could also sec the loop signal lowered. The other fireman, witness no. 41, Shri Bachan Singh did not see the signals at Mohri. Driver Shri Sadhu Ram, witness no. 42, saw both the signals lowered for him. As stated earlier, there is somo contradiction betwoen them whether the Driver had shouted 'alright' or nob and from which place the home signal was seen.

100. There are a number of witnesses who depose about statements made by others. Witness no. 7, Shri L. D. Puri abates that Shri Sadhu Ram told him that signals were down but he heard no talk as to how the accident had occurred. Witness no. 18, Shri S. R. Paul states that no one told him that signals were first lowered for the Janata and were then put baok. Witness no. 30, Shri Ram Saran Dass heard no one say how the accident had occurred. Witness no. 43, Dr. B. S. Monga and witness no. 50, Dr. K. C. Das Gupta state that Shri Sadhu Ram made no statement to them. They did not question him either. Witness no. 52, Dr. M. D. Choudhury and witness no. 68, Dr. Harbans Singh state that on enquiry, Shri Sadhu Ram had told them that the signals had been lowered for him. A class IV employee whispered to Dr. Choudhury that the signals had been lowered and some passengers told him that the driver had acted very bravely in applying the brakes repeatedly. There are some contra- dictions between Dr. Harbans Singh and Dr. M. D. Choudhury but there may be disregarded. Before the Government Inspector of Railways, Shri B. B. Lai stated that in front of the Station Master's office, people wore talking among themselves that the accident was caused by the pointsman having failed to Bet points correctly for the Janata. He stated that there was no talk of the signals having been off or on at that time. We have referred to this statement only because Shri Anthony wanted us to refer bo it.

101. On the other hand evidence is there to indicate that the signals were not lowered. Witness no. 1, Santoo, witness no. 2, Shri P. 0. Gupta, witness no. 4, Shri Sham Lai, witness no. 5, Shri Chela R;im, form the station staff. In addition, Shri Roshan Lai also states that the signal levers wore nob pulled over. Witness no. 6, 8hri Basant Singh states that two minutes after the acoi- dent, he noticed that no signal levers in the signal lever frame were pulled over i.e. no signals were lowerod at that time. Witness no. 20, Shri Ram Parkash staets that when 2 DU stopped, no signals had been lowered for the Janata. We attach considerable imporbance to the statement of these two witnesses an they do not appear to be at all interested in either story. Their evidence clearly negatives the theory tJ*it the signals may have been lowered for the Janata before any directions were received to receive 2 DU and then though tho signals

lovers may have been pushed back, the signals arms may have remained in the down position. No evidence has boen adduced indicating that both the up outer and upioop home were defective at tlm 'imo of the acoident or after it. Witness no. 6, Shri Basant Singh has stated that Shri P. C. Gupta told him that the driver had disobeyed the signals. He also stated that he did not hear any talk of the accident taking plaoo due to the pointsman's fault. Witness no. 84, Shri M. A. Rao arrived a considerable time after the accident.

102. The evidence that the signals were lowered is not satisfactory. It is either the interested ovidenoe of the driver and the fireman or the unimpressive evidence of the students and their Profoasor. There is no reason why Shri Basant Singh, and Shri Ram Prakash should not bo stating the truth. In any case, we do not come to a final conclusion on tlio baais of oral evidence alone. We have the evidence of circumstanoes. As statod earlier, there is the time factor. There was not sufficient time after the arrival of 2 DU for signals to be lowered for the Janata for the main line. The damaged condition of the trap in the open looked position and the setting of the up facing point for the loop line precludes all possibilities of any up signal having been lowered for tho Janata. That the signals may havo remained in the off position even whon the levers were pushed back has already been discussed by us and the evidence completely negatives the possibility. Witness no. 20, Shri Ram Prakash supports other witnesses on this point. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that no signals had been lowerod for tho Janata and that the driver clearly disobeyed signals when he oame into the Mohri yard.

Po3sible Objections

103. Certain possibilities have boen put bofore us by Shri Anthony and we woul d like to discuss them bofore we affirm our conclusion that the driver must have disobeyed the signals.

104. The first possibility is that th^ up signals were first lowered for the Janata Expross and wore subsequently raised in order to lower signals for the reception of 2 D. U. In that caso the Station Master would have raised the signals on the up side and lowered those on the down side. This process would take at least 31 seconds. We have evidence that 2 DU did not have to stop outside the outer signal. This clearly indicates that af the time of raising the signals, the Janata would have been at a point where it must have been at least 3 minutes 31 seconds before the accident. Then oven at an average speed of 20 MPH, it must have been far beyond the sighting line of the uj outer signal. In that case any such mistake on tho part of the assistant station master in first lowering the signals for tho Janata would havo no material bearing on the case before us.

105. The theory that this raising of the signals must have been done after the Janata had crossed the outer signal stands condemned by the time factor and merits no serious consideration. The time taken by the Janata to travel from tho outer signal to the site of the accident is much less than the time which was taken by the station staff in locking the trap in the open position as to doing of which there can be no doubt in view of tho damage to it. In any case the home signal must have been raised before the outer sif^nal was put back to danger which is contradictory to the statement of the driver.

106. The second theory put forward for our consideration is that after the arrival of 2 DU, the assistant station master by mistake lowered the signals for the loop line for the Janata and then realising his mistake, raised, them. Again we have ourselves seen that this process upbo and including the looking of the trap in the open position would tako over 2J- minutes. The Janata oould not have taken 1\ minutes to travel from the outer signal to the station, particularly as we have the definite statement that the speed at the outer signal was 30 miles and the speed at the place of the accident was 15 to 20 miles. Even at 20 miles per hour, the Janata would take only about IA minutes to cover the distance of 2,830 feet from the outer signal to the site of the accidont. Therefore, on this theory also the signal must have been raised before the Janata readied the outer signal, which ia nob the story put forward by Shri Anthony.

107. The third theory is that after 2 DU had arrived at the station, signals were in fact lowered for the loop and remained lowered as the assistant station master failed to notice his mistake. It is extremely improbable that both the assistant station master and waterman Chela Ram would commit the mistake of lowering the signals for the loop line while all the time 2 DU waB standing right in front of them. But even if wo discard that improbability, the fact re- mains that the damage to the trap and the signal gear, possible only if the trap was in the open lookod position, clearly shows that the signals were in faot not lowered.

108. The learned counsel has also urged that in accordance with the polioy of not giving priority to delayed trains, the Janata would not be given priority over 2 DU. If the suggestion is that 2 DU wo'ild be run to Shahabad Markanda and the Janata would be stopped there as it had already become late, then obviously this was not done as we know that the Janata was not made to atop at Shahabad Markanda. If on the other hand the suggestion is that as the Janata waB running late, it would be received on the loop line and made to halt and 2 DU would be run through as usual, that theory will also hold no water. In that case, the loop line would be used for the Janata and the main line kept for 2 DU but we definitely know that 2 DU arrived on the loop line without aooi- dent before tho Janata came to Mohri.

109. The fifth theory, that of the possibility of the signal levers having been pulled back and the signals having remained in the down oondition due to signalling defect has already been discussed by us and rejeoted. There is no evidence that there was any such defect and the statement of Shri Ram Prakash, witness no. 20, clearly shows that whon 2 DU was berthed at the station, all the Up signals were in the 'on' position.

110. Shri Anthony has then urged that the damage to trap may have been caused in several various manners and not by being trailed through in the open locked position. We have ourselves been greatly impressed by the evidence of this trap being trailed through and damaged. We proceed to discuss 9hri Anthony's objections and his explanations of the damage caused,

111. To explain the possibility of damage by the forward motion of tho Janata, the Gist suggestion ia that the trap may not have been in the fully cloaed position, even though the lever had been pushed baok to look the trap

point in the closed position. In tliat cane the tolerance between tun bogie wheels and the rails would be sufficient to lot the. .switch mil of the tr.ip remain un- damaged where it was or the switch rail would be pushed back to liouso in the stook rail without any damage.

112. If on the other hand the trap was in the unlocked opon position, then the pressure of the bogie wheols of the incoming Janata would push back the switch rail to the stook rail without canning nny dnmagn either to the switch rail or to the signal gear.

113. It has also been suggested that in that position, the switch rail might, under the pressure of running train, flap about, now close to the stock rail and then again away from it, and this flapping about might have caused the damage. There is no force in this contention either. The bogie wheels coming HO quickly one after the other over the trap points would exert pressure to keep the switch rail constantly adhering to the stock rail.

Possibility of backward movement

114. We have also to consider whether the trap could havo been damaged in any manner other than the forward motion of 45 Up Janata. Shri Anthony suggested that the damage to the trap might have been caused duo to the backward movement of the Janata following the actual impact. We have no evidence of such movement. Wo havo already stated that there would be no recoil, particularly as the momentum of the Janata would be lost by pushing 2 DU back and then ploughing through the formation. Tho displacement of the rails under the smashed bogies and the engines would veto any backward move- ment. Again the backward movement would not cause damage if the trap was in the closed position. If it was open, then the bogies would derail. This explana- tion cannot, therefore, be held valid.

115. Another explanation offered is that there may have been some lateral movement of the bogies Btanding over the tongue rail and this might have caused the damage. Witness no. 13, Shri Chunni Lai has stated that there was no damage to the bogie wheels. We have absolutely no evidence of any lateral movement. The lateral movement if any would bo much greator in the oase of bogies nearer the Janata engine. We find no damage to the track under any undamaged bogie near the engine. There is no possible reason for any lateral movement. Further if the trap was in the closed lockod position, the tongue rail would be completely housed in the stock rail and would form one unit with it. Thus there would be no damage. If the tongue r^il was in the open freo posi- tion, it would be simply pushed back without causing any damage either to the tongue rail or the signalling mechanism. In the oase of the third alternative of the trap being in the open looked position, the damage would be caused by the forward movement prior to the collision and there would be no necessity of any backward or lateral movement for causing the damage. In any oase, we need not consider the third alternative as that would clearly imply that no signal could have been lowered and once we accept that the trap was in tho open looked position, it follows that the statement that tho signals were down, ia incorrect.

Possibility of Tampering

116. The last explanation suggested, by Sim Anthony is that the trap may have been tampered with after the accident. Tho suggestion is that the trap wa < in the closed locked position for the reception of the Janata. After the accident, the assistant station master realised that ho was dono for, unless he could fake evidence that the signals were up and in order to raise the signals, he attempted to lock the trap in the open locked position. In order to do that lie got his men to move the switch rail. Thero are two possible positions. If there were no bogie wheels over the tip of the switch rail and the tongue rail was between the bogio wheels then there would be no damage by moving the tongue rail. In case one of the bogie wheels was exactly on top of the tip of the tongue rail, tho evidence of Shri Bhatwadkar indicates that a pressure of 16-5 tons would have to be exerted in order to break the tip of the tongue rail. That pressure, we are certain, could not be exerted except by 75—100 persons. The suggestion that the assis- tant station master could have collected 75—100 persons in order to exert that pressure is so ridioulous as to call for no consideration. Wo are unable to oonceive of any manner of concentrating such a pressure, exerted manually by so many persons, on one point. Even if it were possible to apply that pressure, the signal gear would give way first, being the weaker link and the tip of the switch rail would remain undamaged.

117. Reliance has been placed on the evidence of Corporal Kulwant Singh) witness no. 67, who reached the scene only at 11-45 A.M. If any tampering had to be done, it must have been done before the arrival of Shri 8. R. Paul, Assistant Traffio Superintendent, Arnbala or even within two or three minutes of the accident, as even the student witnesses have stated that signal was raised within two or three minutes of the accident.

118. We are certain that the loop signals oould not have been lowered when the trap remained in the locked open position, and therefore no question of rais- ing the signals arises. The evidence of Corporal Kulwant Singh does not help as if any tampering was done, it must have been done within 2-3 minutes of the aooident-

119. None of the reasons suggested by Shri Anthony for holding that the trap could have been damaged otherwise than by the forward movement of 45 Up Janata when it was in the locked open position can possibly be correct. On the evidence we must hold that the trap was damaged beoause it was in the open locked position and therefore it necessarily follows that the signals oould not have been lowered for the Janata.

120. We have discussed all the alternatives suggested by Shri Anthony and having rejected them we affirm our conclusion that the evidence clearly indite. es that no signals were lowered for the Janata and that driver Shri Sadhu Ram brought in his train disobeying the signals which were adverse to him,

Excessive Speed

121. We have also recorded a conclusion that the speed at the 1 ime of the impact was in the order of 30 miles per hour. There is a restriction of ] 0 miles over the loop line. Driver Shri Sadhu Ram says in his statement thai- he saw that the loop line home signal was lowered for him. He had thus no valid

•xcuse for exceeding the spaed of 10 milo" whon he enfcored the loop. We are also certain that even if the Janata, was travelling at 20 mile3, when entering the loop, the accident could havo been avoided as tha traia oould have been brought to a halt before it could reach the engine of 2 DU.

Excuses for excessive speed

122. It is suggested to us that it is necessary for drivers in order to maintain the prescribed time schedule to mitor the loop at more than 10 miles per hour. Witness no.22, Shrill. D. Korr has stated bhat he has no difficulty in maintain- ing the time schedule. He has, howover, stated that he would lose time by enter- ing the loop at 10 miles por hour and has stated that drivers are called upon to explain more than one niinute'n delay. Witness no, 23, Shri Dhanpat Rai has stated that he enters the loop at a speed of not more than 10 miles per hour. Driver Sadhu Ram has also admitted that there is no difficulty in maintaining the time schedule. But he stated that if he reduces the speed to 10 milea per hour, he will not be able to maintain the time sohedule. Witness no. 61, Shri E. Kirkman has also stated that it is not possible to keep the time and he therefore violates the rule even when his ongino is provided with a speedometer. We are unable to acoept the suggestion because there is ample difference betweon the minimum time in which the journoy can be performed and the time provided in the working time table for each run. There is thus no justification for entering the loop at more than 10 miles per hour on the plea that it is necessary in order to maintain the time schedule. The evidence ia that drivers have not complain- ed and we do not see why, if they had any genuine difficulty, they made no report. We conclude that the drivers d t not have any general difficulty in maintaining the time schedules.

123. The second contention is that the drivers would not reach the end of the platform if they enter the loop at a speed of 10 miles per hour. Witness no. 22, Shri H. D. Kerr has reinforced this plea by stating that no driver worth the name will open up the stoam again after entering the loop.

124. Witness no. 23, Shri Dhanpat Rai has stated that he would reaoh the end of the platform by entering the loop at 10 miles per hour and it would not be necessary to open steam again. Driver Sadhu Ram also admitted that he would reach the end of the platform if he entered the loop at 10 miles per hour. We, therefore, see no scope for the argument that by entering the loop at 10 miles per hour, the driver would not reaoh the end of the platform.

125. The third suggestion is that all drivers habitually hit the loop at more than 10 miles per hour, and thorefore, there waa nothing wrong or unusual about Shri Sadhu Ram hitting the facing point that day at a speed exceeding the restricted speed. Witness no. 23, Shri Dhanpat Rai stated that he does not enter the loop at a speed exceeding 10. Witness no. 45, Shri Himmat Singh stated that whenever he is on the engine, the drivers observe the restriction of the epeed on the loop. Witness no. 55, Shri JST. Merrit has stated that he hits the facing point at 10 miles per hour. Witness no. 60, Shri H. Q.Gordon has stated that though he attempts to keep his speed on the loop within 10 miles per hour, he oan make no precise guess and found that his estimated speed of 10 milea per hour, was actually 20 miles per hour. On an engine not fitted with a speedometer, there might be some scope for mistake in judging the spaed. But we have positive evidence to indicate that the engine of 45 Up was fitted

with a speedometer in. working oider. The evidence does not bear out the con- tention that all drivers habitually hit tho loop at speeds exceeding 10 miles per hour. There is no justification for violating tho speed restriction as regards the Bpeed on the loop and no virtue can be made out of this suggested deliberate disobedienoe.

Application of Brakes

126. The oral evidence indioates that the brakes were not applied but we need not refer to the statements of witness no. 4, Shri Sham Lai, witness no. 5 Shri Chela Ram, witness no. 7, Shri L. D. Puri, Guard of the Janata, witness no. 28, Shri Surinder Mohan Ashri, witness no. 29, Shri Baohitar Singh, witness no. 30, Shri Ram Saran Dass, witness no. 31, Shri Kuldip Singh Dhaliwal, witness no. 32, Shri Joginder Singh, witness P.O. 33, Shri Khushal Singh, witness no. 48, Shri Madan Mohan Anand, witness no, 49, Shri Karan Singh, witness no. 53, Shri Hardwari Lai and witness no. 54, Shri Deep Chand. It is stated by these persons that no brakes wore applied and they did not feel any sensation of the application of the brakes and had no difficulty in moving about in the compartments. The evidence of Shri L. D. Puri is entitled to some weight as he states that if the brakes had been applied, ho would have looked out of tho compartment. On the other hand, witnesn no. 40, Shri Ram Sunder states the brakes were suddenly applied at the facjng point. Witness no. 41, Shti Bachan Singh also supports this statement. "Witness no. 42, Shri Sadhu Ram states that he did not apply the brakes when he saw the loop home signal down but applied them fully on the faoing point. Shci Hun mat Singh told the Govern- ment Inspector of Railways that when he inspected the oontrols of the 45 Janata engine, he found the lever in mid gear, the looking notch 'off' and the vacuum brake handle in the 'on' position. The regulator valve handle was in the closed position. Witness no. 34, Shri Ajmer Singh has also stated that the driver did four things:—

(") Shut off the steam regulator.

(ii) Apply tho vacuum brakes.

(in) Put the reverse lever in the reversu position; and

(iv) Turn the gear from the fore gear position to the mid gear position

in his attempt to put it in the reverse position.

We are told that the steam regulator was shut off at the sighting line. At tho time of the accident the driver was apparently trying to put the gear in the reverse position but did not have sufficient time and could move it only to the mid gear position. This gives some indication of the time when the vacuum brake must have been applied. Shri Anthony in his arguments has also urged that Shri Sadhu Ram's reflex actions are probably slower and he may have taken a few seconds to reaot mentally and may have applied the brakes after passing the facing point. That appears to be the correct position. It appears to us that the necessity of application of the brakes dawned on Shri Sadhu Ram only when he had passed the facing point. He took some time to reaot mentally and actually applied the brakes Bomewhere between the facing point and the engine of 2 DU- The brakes require some time to take effect as the braking action takes about 20 seconds to build up fully. There was no appreciable difference between the speed on tho facing point and the speed at the time of the impaot. The Commiflsion

made a teat and found t hat with the regulator slint off at the outer signal with a speed of 30 miles au hour, the speed at the facing point would bo %i) miles. Thus the ovidence clearly indicates not only that tho speed wag exoessivo having re- gardtothe restrictions as to tho spued of this train and also on the loop but that tho bmkus were applied late and did apt take full effect before the actual impact.

Conclusions

127. On the evidence before us the assistant station master .Shri P. C. Gupta is not proved to have failed to do anything or to have done something which might have contributed to the collision. The evidenco clearly indicates that the driver Shri Sadhu Ham disobeyed the signals. He passed both the outer and the home signals at danger, He, further, on his own admission, disobeyed the restriction as to the speed on the loop. His suggestion is that the up loop homo signal was lowered for him. Then his speed at the facing point should have been 10 miles an hour as required by the rules. He had no justifica- tion for the excessive speed of about 30 miles per hour. He is also proved to have applied the brakes late and thus failed to disoharge his general responsibility of keeping his train under control and be able to stop his train short of anv obstacle.

V.'.S. The learned counsel has urged that it is improbable that Shri Sadhu Ram could have disobeyed the signals which were against him. He has drawn attention to 12 specific cases of accidents over the Southern Raihvay as published in their Accident Bulletins during the years 1950 and 1957. Out of these, two arc cases of premature raising of signals and 10 are .cases in which wrong signals were given, two of which resulted in collisi. ms of goods trains in the yaid, and, eight cases in which collisions were averted. The same bulletins give figures of truins running against signals. In 1956, 21 trains ran against signals. Tho figure for tho first three quarters of 1957 was 1(5. A statement given to tho Commission shows that during the year 1957 on Delhi— Ambala-—Kalka Section a'o'K.¹ ai>: flignala at danger wore passed by drivers. Wn have also been furnished with a tabln of trains passing signals at danger on th'J Northern Bail way during the years 1954-55, 195->56, 1956-57 and 1957-58 (eight months). The table is given below:—

In the y**nr

Description of aipiajs ,

7

4

r.

;•', 1

¹

¹

2

Outer Hi, me Starter Outer & Home Home & Starter .. Advance Starter . . Starter &• Advance

2

Starter

G n r . i i> P? t i n ; "' S i ^ n a¹ -•

1 1

m

2

M/Bfl-jitiSn- 3

It will be notioed that in three cases in 1954-55 and one case in every subsequent period the driver passed both the outer and the home signals at danger. The Kailway Administration has also furnished the Coinmifision with a statement of trains passing signals at danger during the three years 1954-55, 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58 (4 months). This statement of jmrti- uular types of signals passed shows that in 8% cases relating to passenger- trains both the outer and the home signals wero passed at danger. This would suggest that there are quite. :i lew canes of such disobedience every year on the Indian Eailways. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of Shri Anthony that the improbability of Shri Sadhu Ram passing the two signals at danger is so great as to make it almost definite that ho could not nave done so,

129. Fireman Shri Earn Sunder aiao failed to discharge his duty of keeping a proper look out when not otherwise engaged. In view of oui conclusions, his statement tha,t he saw the 2 signals lowered cannot bo true. Since he must have seen the signals at danger he should.have framed the driver.

Disobedience of_ other rules

130. Having established tho primary responsibility for the accident, tho Commission would like to offer some oomments on the violation of certain rules and regulations which havu come to light in the course of the evidonoe tendered before it.

131. It has been suggested to us that non-observance uf Rule 39(6) brought 2 DU into the station at Mohri earlier than it should have come and even that it is possible that the collision might have been averted if 2 DU had been stopped at the outer signal. Wo are unable to take this argument seriously. Indeed there would have been no collision if tho 2 DU had not been running at all or even if the Janata had been punctual. Wo cannot take these 'might have beens' seriously. The 2 DU may have left Ambala at the right tirue or having left Ambala at '6 • 55 A.M. may not have lost any time at all on the way, Tho experiments carried out by us demonstrated that 2 DU would have taken 2 minutes and 36 seconds extra if it had been stopped at the down outer signal. It may bo that in that case the 2DU would have bwn on tho loop line ui; the time of tho accident. If it had been detained a little longer, it is even possible that there may have been a head-on collision with both tho trains in motion. If conjecture is permitted, it may even be said that if the Janata had taken the full Id minutes time provided for itu passage from Shahabad Muxkanda to Mohri, tho facing point may have been set for thr, main lino in the addi- tional one minute and no accident may have occurred oven if driver Shri Sadhu Kam disobeyed the signals. Wfi are convinced that tho non-obser- vanco of Kulo 39(fr) mid Subsidiary Eule 39/5 was not n, contributory cause of the accident.

131!. We are informed that under tho rules (G.R. No. 143 and Operating Manual Eule 3900S)(u) the headlight of 2 DU engine should have been kept on, though dimmed, after it hud become stationary. Had the headlight been kept on dimmed, it is podf.il/io to urgo, the obstruction may have bocn noticed b/ Shri Sadliu Ea_u much earlier. We, however, find, as a matter of fact iliat though Shri Sadhu Ha,.it slates that the lorvp signal was lowered for him,

he did not apply any brakes till lie had passed tho facing point. He obviously appears to have made no attempt to reduce the speed even to 10 miles an hour. The only possible explanation can be that he was somehow under the impression that ho was running on the main line. But that is in the realm of conjecture and we do not wish to make any conjectures.

133. Wo cannot be certain that casualties would have been loss if the brakes of"2 DU had not been kept 'ON' after it had become stationary. Then there may have been no smashing of tho bogies of 2 DU. There is, however, the possibility that some of the rear bogies of 2 DU might havo been derailed by the trap point at its roar which had already been locked in tho open position by the pointsman. In that case there may havo been other casualties due to derailment.

Position of steel coacfies

134. Witness no. 45, Shri Himmat Singh, has also oxpresscd the opinion that if HAL bogies had boon kept in tho rake immediately behind tho TLE of 45 Up Janata they would have resisted pressure better and the casualties may have been lowor. On the whole, we are inclined to agree with him.

Findings

135. To sum*up, wo conclude that the Up outer and the Up home signak at Mohri wore at danger when tho 45 Up Janata Express entered the loop line at 4-16 A.M. on 1-1-58 and that the speed of that train when entering the loop line was in the order of 30 m.p.h.

Shri Sadhu Earn, driver of 45 Up Janata, failed to keep a good look out when approaching Mohri station and did not obey the signals. He also failed to comply with the speed restriction of 10 m.p.h. applicable to the loop line. Driver Shri Sadhu Earn thus contravened General Eule 76(a), Subsidiary Rule 90/1(6) and General Eule 122.

The first fireman of '15 Up Janata Shri Earn Sunder failed to keep a good look out at tho time of approaching Mohri station when he was not otherwise engaged. He thus contravened General Eulo 122.

This answers the second term of reference to this Commission.

PART IV—EBCOMMENDATIONS

Punishments

136. The acoident was caused by non-observance of rules. The only remedy is that stricter observance of the rules be enforced. A statement of punishments awarded to drivers disobeying signals during the year 1954-55, 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58 (4 months) has been furnished. Wo have been driven much against our wish to the conclusion that the punishments are on the lenient side. In the interest of the travelling public whose safety is committed to the care of the railway staff, it is essential that every possible effort be made ,to flee that rules are strictly'com plied,

Jtf/B(D)158GI—4

137. On 30th June, 1954, the driver of Mela Special No. 7 passed the starter signal at Kurukshetra due to excessive speed and burst point No. 24. The punishment awarded to him was stoppage of privileges for six months. On 25-7-54 the Driver of Dn. BZA Special passed the starter signal at Kinana and burst the point. In this case, even though a part of the responsibility lay with the pooT and ineffective brake power, he was awarded 12 months' stoppage of privileges. On 10-8-54 the driver of 748 Dn TG passed the starter signal in the Fureutganj station yard and entered into the sand hump due to his failure to control his engine. He was reduced as a Shunter for 3 months without affecting his seniority and future increments. Similarly on 10-11-54 the driver of 1217 Up Goods passed the starter signal at Milk due to starting without satisfying himself that the starter was on. The engine was derailed but the only punishment given was that the driver's next increment was withheld for 2 months.

138. On 14-3-55 the driver of D62 Dn. passed the starter signal at Khara- war OH he could not control his train and burst the up faoing point. The in- crement of the driver was temporarily stopped for six months. On 31-3-55 the driver of 748 Dn TG paused the starter signal at Rae Bareli and trailed through a point by starting when the signal for another line was lowered. His increment was withheld for six months. On 27-10-55 the driver of 63 Up Express passed the up main starter at Gaipura in the 'on' position. He was only censured. On 13-1-55 the driver of 402 Dn. Goods passed the down outer signal at Chandari and burst the point. He was reduced to a lower post for six months temporarily.

139. On 11-3-56, the driver of 465 Up passed the starter signal at Siimpla, due to excessive speed and burst the trailing point. His increment was tem- porarily stopped for one year. On 15-6-56 the driver of 339 Up Passenger passed the up loop starter causing serious damage to the engine and derailing one bogie. His increment was stopped for 2 years.

140. We could give other instances but consider it unnecessary to do so. We have not studied the enquiry reports which resulted in these punishments but the cases mentioned by us are sufficient to justify our impression thf.t punishments are not commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. All attendant circumstances have invariably to be considered in assessing the gravity of the offence in each case but we would like to emphasize that in disobeying signals, a driver has made his contribution to a possible collision and cannot plead for leniency only because none takes place. Lenienoy in cases of some minor or averted accidents may breed major accidents. We suggest that action be taken to ensure that punishments fit the offence and also that there is some measure of uniformity in punishments awarded. We also believe that punishments to be effective should be awarded as promptly as possiblo and suggest that if necessary the procedure for the conclusion of the enquiry be made more expeditious. Our remarks are meant to apply to breaches of rules and orders by all staff and not only by any particular section of it. We understand some action in this direction has been taken by tho Northern Railway.

141. A statement of footplate inspections has been given to us. During the year 1956, Divisional Mechanical Engineer (I) made only 5 footplate inspections during the first five months of the year. He made 21 inspections during the remaining six months. Similarly Divl, Mechanical Engineer (II) made only 4 inspections during the first six months of the year and made 23 inspections during the second half of the year. Assistant Mechanical Engineer (II), though ho made 23 footplate inspections during the year 1956 made only one inspection in each of the months of February, May, July August, September and Decembor. We notice that the number of these inspections has risen in the year 1957.

142. We give below a table showing numbers of detailed and night ins- pections that should have been made during 1957 and the figures of inspections actually made :—

• Number of Inspections

—\

t

Designation of Officer/Inspector

Night

Detailed

A

AI —A"

"If

Annual Quota

Annual Quota

Made during 1957

Mado during 1957

1. Divisional Operating Super-

4

intendent

12

4

7

2. A s s t^ Transportation

Supdtt. (No. I) ..

24 24 24

8 9 10

1 5 4 5

24

1 13 18 17 3. Do. No. II 4. Do. Ambala 5. Do. Bhatinda .. 6. Divisonal Inspector, Trans-

36

B portation, Delhi

36

7. Traffic Inspeotor, Dellii ..

5 32

8 29

27

8. Do. Ambalft 9. Do. Meerut

10. Do. Bhatinda ..

32 27 20 13

21 27 24

20 12 17 14

36 36 36 36 24

1

11. Do. Solan 12. Asstt. Operating Supdtt. .. 13. Do. (Goods)

27 1 1

* •

The Commission notices that the officers have not always completed the annual quota of their inspections. Wo suggest that the number of these inspections be increased if they are inadequate, and they should be more evenly distributed. This recommendation applies to all inspoeiions by supervinory staff.

143. We would go further and suggest that an element of surprise be introduced in these ohecks by senior officers only, aud without taking risks^ the officers should check whether rules are being properly followed. For example, the officers may see that though the points are properly set for the trains, thus obviating all possibilities of accident, they should under their own personal supervision either give contradictory signals, get signals to droop or even raise them suddenly in face of a coming train, to see whethcT the drivers comply with, the rules. Similar teBts should be worked out for cheoking the efficiency of the station staff. To ensure the element of surprise, it may be neoessary for each the selected station otherwise than by train.

144. We would also suggest that there should be greater follow-through action on oircular orders. An instance of a direction about Rule 39(6) having issued in the last days of 1957 has come to our notice. It appears that while circular orders are issued, care is not'taken to see that the staff aotually get these orders in time, understand their implication and observe the directions given.

145. We cannot but emphasise that the rules must be strictly complied with and every effort made to see that they are oarried out in the spirit and the letter. To that end, we are of the opinion that following steps be taken:— (1) The rules should bo expressed in simple language. They should be so worded that they are easily understood and there ia no ambi- guity about their meaning. Clarifications should also be issued to remove confusion and doubt where it appears .to exist, such aft, has come to the Commission's notice in respect of General Rule 39(6).

(2) We have also been impressed by the requirement that the Rules should be better understood. Strict- compliance witMWie rules is of the utmost importance for the safe conduct of operations and we are unable to completely discard the possibility of some acci- dents occurring because of an imperfect comprehension of the rules. We therefore suggest that in addition to English, the rules be published in the regional languages.

(3) It appears to us that it is absolutely essential that the rules be kept under constant review,and difficulties experienced in working them should be taken into consideration and the rules or the pro- cedure amended whenever found neceHsary.

(4) It has come to our notice that the Subsidiary Rules framed by the different Zonal Railways are neither reported to the Railway Board, nor necessarily brought to the notioe of the other zones. This means that the experience gained by one zone and its reasons for making the changes are not available to the other zones. We are surprised that this should be so. We Buggest that Subsi- diary Rules framed by any Zonal Railway should invariably be brought to the notice of the other zones andtho Railway Board, accompained by a clear statement of the reasons for introducing, deleting or modifying the rule. This would not only make the experience of one Zonal Railway available to tho- others, but would tend to secure uniformity in the Subsidiary Rulea.

146. We make a few further recommendations designed to increase the safety factor in view of the increasing traffic trend. We would, however, like to emphasise that the provision of better facilities is not meant to curtail tbe iesponsibility of the driver and the station staff, who must in all cases, jemain alert, comply with the rules and obey all signals. We make the follow- ing suggestions :—

%$ Where justified-by the increase in traffic we suggest the adoption of Standard III signalling.

$>J In our opinion the 'trap' should not be considered as sufficient jBubstitute for "adequate" distance and removal of traps will not Httprove matters. We recommend that snag-dead-ends or sand- fcwnps be provided on the loop lines or the loop lines lengthened, wherever justified, to secure simultaneous reception and despatch of trains. This will also enable trailing points being set for recep- tion of a train coming from the opposite direction in case the first trun is received on the loop line.

(c) Son*i provision be made to improve the visibility of the sighting line, prticularly in rainy and misty weather. We suggest the provision of a board with yellow reflecting beads or some other effective device. We understood that the Railway Board have already directiois on the point.

We do not think the provision of fixed warners to outer signals will help, though it has been suggested to us that a red skoal is visible from a greater distance than a green signal, and provision of fixed mtoers would help drivers.

{d) In.view of the cost involved, we do B^ suggest the provision of any device to give the drivers aufcSBSfrtte WMoiag of adverse signals, butit would be desirable to purstte t&e research at present being doae.

(e) We also suggest that practical experiment D&Wia&e'W ana out the effect of weather on braking distances and if ifi.iifciMd.fiAt brak- ing capacity is appreciably affected by the wesifeRf^k$a tkiB fact be pointedly brought to the notice of the drivers.

147. We have to make a few minor suggestions also, des%ifii SSJftry to reduce casualties in case an accident does occjur. Some of therfi jsay also avoid the occurrence of the accident. We woukf^pimerate them as under :

(a) A luggage van should be put next to the en|pne in every passenger train. We are informed that this was previously recommended by the Government Inspectorate of Railways'MS* is probably being implemented.

(b) Where possible, anti-telescopic steel coaches be put in the rake next to the luggage van immediately after the engine.

(c) The outer signal be provided with double wire and pulley arrange- ment to reduce chances of contradictory signals and drooping of outer signals by unauthorised pulnng of wires.

We understand t h at provision exists for providing this arrangement or the Delhi-Ambala Section.

(d) Steps be taken, as far as possible, to secure visibility of t he signals from t he station signal lever frames. In our experiments we &"uc t h at t he signals at Mohri station were n ot visible from t he l " lS frame, b ut could be seen only after walking a few paces.

(e) All passenger train engines be provided with speedomeSeis.

is true t h at some of old engines have been provided wita spw&do meters a nd new imported engines have speedometers. W© suggest t h at steps be taken to manufacture speedometers within t he conntry (/) The Administration should consider t he advisability of all 'Jrivee and guards who require glasses, both for short a nd long cfistance, having bi-focal glasses.

~>I

(g) The head light of all stationary trains should be kept < m ^ k% dimmed position. The rule on the point should be strictly oSm plied with.

(h) The brakes of all stationary passenger trains shouJi be taken off

with the ejector in the running position.

(i) Care should be taken to see that signal glssses and Jampsjip maintained in proper c&ndition. We feel^hat there are reports of cases of signals being dim.

148. There are certain other matters which have come to our notice though they are not covered by the specific ferns of reference of this Commission and we would like to bring those facts to the notice of the Government for their consideration:—

(i) We find that the tmafoet of blankets, sheets and lanterns provided in the relief trains sse> insafficient to meet the requirements of a serious aeeidejifc We would like the authorities, to review the" existing proyi"©n as regards medicines, particularly Morphine, Brandy s"4 tke bandages provided.

(ii) W4 areoiot satisfied with the number of cranes and their capacity *>PSeSrMed by the Administration and their location.

149. W# sm jtafopned that some of the matters enumerated by us are j&fe%8tiy~teceiving tke attention of some of the Railway Administrations but we have made our recommendations in view of the possibility that they may not have been considered by other Administrations.

150. In the case of this accident, the relief measures were taken with commendable promptitude. The relief trains left Ambala and Delhi without avoidable delay and valuable assistance was rendered by military and civil authorities including prWate medical practitioners.

We place on record our thanks and appreciation of the excellent work done by the Secretary and the staff attached to the Commission. We also thank the Railway Administration for the assistance given to us in the whole course of the enquiry. We have experienced complete frankness on the part of the Railway Administration and they have been willing to give us every information required and to render every assistance.

PART V—SUMMARY ON FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

151. Summing up briefly, we state our conclusions as follows :—

(1) The causes of the accident at Mohri were :—•

(a) Disobedienoe of signals; and

(6) Excessive speod of Janata Express when entering the loop line.

(2) Wo hold that driver Shri Sadhu Ram disobeyed signals and wa3 travelling at excessive speed and ia, therefore, responsible for the accident.

(3) The first fireman, Shri Ram Sundar also failed to keep a look-out for signals when not otherwise engaged and to that extent we hold him respon- sible.

(4) Striot oomplian.ee with the rules bo secured by imposing fit punishments for disobedience.

(5) Steps be taken to ensure some degree of uniformity with regard to punishments imposed for similar offences.

(6) Steps be taken to make the procedure of departmental enquiries more expeditious.

(7) The number of inspections made by supervisory ofiicers be increased, if necessary, and they be more evenly distributed throughout the year.

(8) Surprise inspections at stations bo made by superior officers to check that rules are complied with both by the station and the train running staff.

(9) Tests as to knowledge of rules be proscribed for the staff connected with operations of trains and refresher courses be proscribed where not pro- vided,

(10) Issue of circular orders should be followed up with aotion to ensure that they are properly understood and fully implemented.

(11) Rules be revised and expressed in simple language.

(12) Rules be published in the regional languages in addition to English.

(13) Rules should be kept under constant review in the light of experience.

(14) Subsidiary Rules made by one Railway Administration be circulated to the other Railways and submitted to the Railway Board.

(15) Standard III signalling be introduced where justified by increased traffic.

(16) Snag-dead ends or sand-humps be provided or loops be lengthened wherever justified for simultaneous reception and despatch of trains.

(17) A board with yellow reflecting beads or other suitable device be fixed near the sighting line.

(18) Experiments be carried out to find OU-t the actual effect pf weather conditions on braking distances.

(19) A luggago van should always be put next to the engine in every passenger train (probably being implemented).

(20) Where possible anti-telescopic steel coaches be put in the rake nest to this luggage van.

(21) Double wire and pulley arrangement be provided for outer signals.

This work 13 in hand on the Delhi-Ainbala Section.

(22) As far as possible, viability of signala from the station signal lever frame be ensured.

(23).Local manufacture of speedometers be undertaken and the programme of providing speedometers on all passenger train engines be accelerated.

(24) The advisability of providing bi-focal glasses for all drivers and guards needing them be examined.

(25) The rule as to tho dimming of the engine head-light be strictly en- forced.

(26) The rule as to the position of brakos on stationary passenger trains bo strictly enforced.

(27) Steps be taken to see that signal glasses and lamps are maintained in proper condition.

(28) A review be made of the equipment of the relief trains. The number of blankets, sheets and lanterns be increased and tho position as regards me- dicines and bandages be examined.

(29) The position as regards the nuinbor, location and capacity of cranes be examined in detail.

It is probable that some of tho matters enumerated above are already receiving the attention of the Railway Administration.

(Sd.) T'EROZE GANDHI (Sd.) J.N. NANDA (Sd) B.N. NIGAM 27-2-58 Member 26-2-1958 Member

Chairman

Commission of Enquiry

Mokri Accident

[No. 58-TT/V/l/l]

P. C. MATHEW

Secretary, Railway Bonrtl

1963 PRINTED IN INDIA BY THE MANAGER GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PRESS SIMLA FOR THE MANACER OF PUBLICATIONS CIVIL LINES DKLHI