港鐵藉口太多 乘客保障太少

<轉載自2017年9月20日 明報 社評>

今年2月港鐵列車縱火案造成1死19傷，港鐵信誓旦旦，承諾全力協助受害人，可是除了伙拍慈善團體募捐，並沒有進一步伸出援手，保險賠償未有着落，部分傷者怒轟港鐵拒絕承擔責任。港鐵一年賺過百億元，對於乘客權益保障卻不成比例，「依足索償程序辦事」成為避過承擔的託辭。港鐵有道義責任向傷者提供更多支援，政府亦應介入，檢討現有賠償機制，確保市民不幸遇上類似事故，能得到比例相符的援助。

縱火案傷者不獲賠償 跟足程序反成擋箭牌

港鐵縱火案距今已有7個月，部分傷者仍然活在痛苦之中。有人嚴重燒傷，連站立1分鐘亦有困難，身心飽受折磨，需要接受漫長的心理和物理治療，有人更失去工作能力，一家生活徬徨。惻隱之心人皆有之，一個發達文明的社會，亦應該有能力和意願去幫助這些無辜受害人，然而令人遺憾的是，傷者發現追討賠償之路難若登天。

案發後港鐵迅即與慈善團體發起募捐，宣布公司和員工合共捐出最少200萬元支援傷者。公司高層還表示，港鐵法律部門和保險公司會「全力協助」處理索償事宜，未料後續發展卻是另一回事。傷者表示，港鐵將索償申請轉介保險公司後，即撇清界線，強調申索事宜與港鐵無關，由保險公司直接回覆。今年7月，由保險公司委託的公證行回覆傷者，意外完全由縱火者負責，案發當日港鐵的處理「迅速、有序及有效」，並無任何責任，故此不會賠償。

港鐵也許振振有辭辯稱，申索事宜跟足程序處理，又有公證行獨立評估，今年4月檢討委員會向政府提交的調查報告，亦認為港鐵應變處理有效，已盡力保障乘客安全，拒絕賠償不過是按規矩辦事，然而問題是目前的賠償機制明顯對受害人不利，港鐵對傷者的承擔太少，不成比例，「跟足程序」變成了擋箭牌。

一般汽車購買的第三者人命傷亡保險，倘若發生意外導致傷亡，保險公司會先向傷者或死者家屬賠償，其後再向責任人追回賠償金額，賠償上限為1億元。可是港鐵為保障乘客權益所購買的第三者責任保險卻有所不同，乘客若遇事故受傷，必須證明是港鐵疏忽，始有機會獲得賠償。以今次縱火案為例，傷者必須證明港鐵沒有「做好本分」，意味舉證責任落在當事人身上，困難度可想而知。受害人和家屬早已身心俱疲，還要花心力自費委託另一間公證行，調查港鐵有否疏忽，隨時準備對簿公堂，「未見官先打三十」，叫人情何以堪。

檢討事故賠償機制 港鐵政府同有責任

誠然，縱火案並非港鐵一手促成，港鐵要承擔的責任，跟列車碰撞出軌一類嚴重事故有別，可是將傷者遭逢不幸，純粹視為陰差陽錯、錯誤時間出現於錯誤地方，與港鐵沒有關係，確實很難令當事人接受。港鐵每日運載逾500萬人次，佔公共運輸總載客量超過四成，對很多市民來說，港鐵實際已是必然選擇，然而港鐵購買的第三者責任保險，對乘客權益保障顯然不足。作為一間年年大賺的公用事業機構，港鐵絕對有能力慷慨一點，為乘客購買覆蓋不尋常意外的保險，負起更大的社會責任。

港鐵和慈善團體為傷者籌得247萬元善款，攤分開來金額其實相當有限，對於失去工作能力的傷者來說，就算幫得了藥費和康復治療，也幫不了日後生計。港鐵還聲稱公司本身也是縱火案「受害者」，與飽受傷勢煎熬的傷者相提並論，未免有點過分。就算港鐵根據現有第三者責任保險條款，得以避過賠償責任，亦應考慮向傷者提供恩恤賠償。

政府有責任敦促港鐵向傷者作出更多承擔，同時亦應檢討類似不幸事故的賠償機制。雖然社署設有暴力及執法傷亡賠償基金，協助受害人，惟賠償金額有限，杯水車薪。港鐵縱火案不涉政治動機，不屬恐怖襲擊，然而性質同樣是傷害無辜。鑑於很多保險公司都列明承保範圍不包括恐襲傷亡，即使在西方發達國家，對於「無差別」襲擊的死傷者，亦未必有完善賠償制度。近年聯合國反恐和人權專員發表報告，主張國際社會應加強保障遇襲受害人，確保他們自動獲得賠償和康復治療的法律權利，值得特區政府思考。

The MTR: too many excuses and too little protection for passengers

LAST February, an arson attack on an MTR train resulted in one death and nineteen injuries. Back then the MTR pledged in all sincerity to do everything it could to help the victims. But since then, the MTR has offered no assistance apart from partnering with charities to raise funds for the wounded, while no insurance benefits have yet to be paid to victims. Some of them criticised the MTR for refusing to shoulder its responsibility. The MTR earns over $10 billion per year. But the protection it offers to passengers is disproportionately insufficient, and it has used its "full compliance with related procedure for handling claims" as an excuse for passing the buck. While the MTR has a moral obligation to provide more assistance for the wounded, the government should interfere and review the mechanism for compensation payment to ensure that people will receive proportionate assistance when they suffer a similar accident.

It is seven months since the arson attack took place, and some of the injured are still living in agony. One of them was so seriously burned that it is now difficult for him to stand for just one minute. The accident has caused him enormous physical and mental suffering, and his long road to recovery will involve a lot of psychological and physical treatments. Another victim has lost his ability to work, throwing the livelihood of the family in doubt. Compassion is something we all share. A prosperous and civilised society should have the ability and willingness to help the innocent victims of the attack. But regrettably, the victims have found it extremely difficult to fight for compensation.

After the attack happened, the MTR immediately launched a fundraising event together with charities, in which the company and employees raised at least $2 million for the victims. The management of the company also said that its legal department would work with an insurance company to "give full support” to the handling of insurance benefits. But what happened next was quite another thing. According to the victims, no sooner had the MTR referred their application for compensation to the insurance company than it made an attempt to distance itself from the matter, saying that the issue had nothing to do with the company any more. The insurance company, said the MTR, would answer questions from the victims directly. In July, a claims adjuster commissioned by the insurance company replied that the attack was carried out by the arsonist and that the MTR's handling of the incident that day was "quick, well-arranged and effective". The MTR did not have any responsibility to shoulder in the matter, and as such did not have to pay any compensation.

The MTR might assert with eloquence that the matter was handled in full accordance with established procedure, and that it was independently assessed by a claims adjuster. Furthermore, it was concluded in a report submitted by a Review Committee to the government in April this year that the company's response was effective and that it tried its best to protect the safety of passengers. The decision to refuse to grant compensations, the MTR might argue, was made simply in accordance with established procedure. However, the problem is that the existing compensation mechanism is obviously unfair to victims. The commitment made by the MTR to the victims is disproportionately insufficient. "Compliance to procedure" is now used as an excuse.

It is true that the arson attack was not caused by the MTR itself. The responsibility it has to shoulder in that matter is different from that for a serious accident, such as when trains clash or derail. That said, it would be difficult to soothe the victims to say that the misfortune that befell them was an unfortunate coincidence, that it happened because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that the MTR had nothing to do with it. The MTR has a daily patronage of more than five million people, which is more than 40 per cent of the total patronage of the public transportation system. To many Hong Kong people, using the MTR is a definite choice. But it is apparent that the third-party insurance taken out by the MTR offers insufficient protection to passengers. As a hugely profitable public utility, the MTR is definitely able to show more generosity and shoulder more social responsibility by insuring passengers against less common accidents.

港鐵藉口太多 乘客保障太少

今年2月港鐵列車縱火案造成1死19傷，港鐵信誓旦旦，承諾全力協助受害人，可是除了伙拍慈善團體募捐，並沒有進一步伸出援手，保險賠償未有着落，部分傷者怒轟港鐵拒絕承擔責任。港鐵一年賺過百億元，對於乘客權益保障卻不成比例，「依足索償程序辦事」成為避過承擔的託辭。港鐵有道義責任向傷者提供更多支援，政府亦應介入，檢討現有賠償機制，確保市民不幸遇上類似事故，能得到比例相符的援助。

港鐵縱火案距今已有7個月，部分傷者仍然活在痛苦之中。有人嚴重燒傷，連站立1分鐘亦有困難，身心飽受折磨，需要接受漫長的心理和物理治療，有人更失去工作能力，一家生活徬徨。惻隱之心人皆有之，一個發達文明的社會，亦應該有能力和意願去幫助這些無辜受害人，然而令人遺憾的是，傷者發現追討賠償之路難若登天。

案發後港鐵迅即與慈善團體發起募捐，宣布公司和員工合共捐出最少200萬元支援傷者。公司高層還表示，港鐵法律部門和保險公司會「全力協助」處理索償事宜，未料後續發展卻是另一回事。傷者表示，港鐵將索償申請轉介保險公司後，即撇清界線，強調申索事宜與港鐵無關，由保險公司直接回覆。今年7月，由保險公司委託的公證行回覆傷者，意外完全由縱火者負責，案發當日港鐵的處理「迅速、有序及有效」，並無任何責任，故此不會賠償。

港鐵也許振振有辭辯稱，申索事宜跟足程序處理，又有公證行獨立評估，今年4月檢討委員會向政府提交的調查報告，亦認為港鐵應變處理有效，已盡力保障乘客安全，拒絕賠償不過是按規矩辦事，然而問題是目前的賠償機制明顯對受害人不利，港鐵對傷者的承擔太少，不成比例，「跟足程序」變成了擋箭牌。

誠然，縱火案並非港鐵一手促成，港鐵要承擔的責任，跟列車碰撞出軌一類嚴重事故有別，可是將傷者遭逢不幸，純粹視為陰差陽錯、錯誤時間出現於錯誤地方，與港鐵沒有關係，確實很難令當事人接受。港鐵每日運載逾500萬人次，佔公共運輸總載客量超過四成，對很多市民來說，港鐵實際已是必然選擇，然而港鐵購買的第三者責任保險，對乘客權益保障顯然不足。作為一間年年大賺的公用事業機構，港鐵絕對有能力慷慨一點，為乘客購買覆蓋不尋常意外的保險，負起更大的社會責任。