The Supreme Court has held that the absence of a railway ticket by itself cannot defeat a compensation claim where the claimant has discharged the initial burden of showing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar restored ₹8 lakh compensation awarded to the parents of a passenger who died after falling from a train, setting aside a Gujarat High Court order that had reversed the Railway Claims Tribunal’s award.
The Court held that the victim’s father had stated on oath that his son had purchased a ticket which was subsequently lost. Once this initial burden was discharged, it was for the Railways to rebut the claim. The Court found that the Railways had failed to do so.
Background
The case arose from an incident on September 27, 2017, when Maheshbhai was travelling towards Surat via Ahmedabad in the general compartment of a train. According to the claim, he fell from the train between Sabarmati and Ahmedabad railway stations after losing his balance amid heavy rush. He suffered multiple grievous injuries and died on October 31, 2017.
His parents approached the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. On June 17, 2022, the Tribunal held that Maheshbhai was a bona fide passenger and had died due to an “untoward incident”. It awarded ₹8 lakh compensation with 9% interest per annum from the date of the incident until the date of the award.
The Union of India challenged the award before the Gujarat High Court. On July 15, 2025, the High Court allowed the Railways’ appeal, holding that there was no evidence establishing that the victim had fallen from the train and that the incident could therefore not be treated as an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
Arguments Before Supreme Court
Appearing for the parents, Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi argued that the High Court had wrongly interfered with the Tribunal’s finding. He submitted that Maheshbhai was travelling with a valid ticket which had been lost and that the burden thereafter lay on the Railways to establish that he was an unauthorised passenger.
The appellants also questioned the Railways’ investigation report, pointing out that it had been prepared more than seven months after the incident, despite the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 requiring an expeditious inquiry. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kalandi Charan Sahoo and Another v. General Manager, South-East Central Railways, Bilaspur and Union of India v. Rina Devi.
Additional Solicitor General Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar, appearing for the Union of India, supported the High Court’s decision. He argued that the claim application did not disclose details of the train, no eyewitness had been examined and no railway ticket was recovered from the victim. The Railways also contended that the injuries were self-inflicted and therefore compensation was barred under Section 124-A of the Railways Act.
Supreme Court on Absence of Railway Ticket
The Supreme Court referred to its ruling in Rina Devi, where it had held that while the mere presence of a body on railway premises would not conclusively establish bona fide travel, the absence of a ticket would also not by itself negate such a claim.
Quoting the earlier ruling, the Court reiterated:
“However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways.”
In the present case, Maheshbhai’s father had stated on oath that his son had purchased a ticket which was lost. The claim application had also specifically stated that apart from the ticket, the deceased’s handkerchief, wristwatch, comb and cash of ₹800 to ₹900 had been lost.
The Court further noted that the two witnesses examined by the Railways admitted that they had not searched the victim’s pockets for a ticket. It also took into account that Maheshbhai remained hospitalised for over a month before his death.
The Bench observed that in such circumstances, it was unlikely that the railway ticket would have been preserved by the family.
It concluded:
“On preponderance of probabilities, it can be concluded that the victim was a bona fide passenger and that absence of recovery of his ticket cannot result in defeating the claim for compensation.”
The Court also held that the principle of “strict liability” under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, as recognised in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Others, was attracted to the case.
Delayed Railway Investigation Disregarded
The Supreme Court separately examined the investigation report relied upon by the Railways. The accident occurred on September 27, 2017, while the report under Rule 6 of the 2003 Rules was prepared only on May 17, 2018, around seven months later.
The Court noted that steps for preparing the report were taken only after the claim proceedings had been initiated. It found no explanation from the Railways for the delay.
The Bench said:
“Delay in conducting the inquiry could not be attributed to the claimants and the Railways cannot seek to take advantage of the delay on their part in preparing the investigation report.”
Relying on Kalandi Charan Sahoo, the Court decided to ignore the delayed investigation report and held that it could not stand in the way of the claimants receiving compensation.
Decision
The Supreme Court held that the Railway Claims Tribunal had correctly granted compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and that the High Court was not justified in reversing the award merely because the railway ticket could not be produced.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the Gujarat High Court’s July 15, 2025 order and restored the Tribunal’s June 17, 2022 award. It directed the Railways to satisfy the award within 30 days. The civil appeal was allowed, with the parties directed to bear their own costs.
Case Title: Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana and Another v. Union of India
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 12951 of 2026
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Date: September 25, 2026
