In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has held that the mere absence of a physical travel ticket on a deceased passenger’s person does not automatically negate their status as a bona fide passenger or disentitle their family from claiming compensation. Deciding on a civil appeal, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh set aside the concurrent findings of the Railway Claims Tribunal and the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had previously rejected a widow’s claim. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ruling that the initial burden of proving passenger status can be discharged by filing an affidavit, and directed the Union of India to pay Rs 8,00,000 in compensation.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to November 28, 2015, when Chandrakant Thakkar was travelling from Raipur to Ahmedabad on Train No. 12834 (Ahmedabad-Howrah Mail). During the journey, Thakkar fell from the running train in the Khandbara-Khatgaon section and died instantaneously due to his injuries.
His wife, Lata, filed a claim petition under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking Rs 4,00,000 with 18% interest. She averred that her husband was a bona fide passenger travelling to Ahmedabad for business and that his ticket was kept in his travel luggage, which was misplaced and remained untraceable after his fatal fall. While the police recovered his wallet containing their son Brijesh’s contact information, the travel ticket was not inside.
The Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT), Bhopal Bench, denied the claim. Although the RCT accepted that the accident qualified as an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, it ruled that the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger could not be established without the physical ticket. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Principal Seat at Jabalpur) upheld this dismissal on January 3, 2024, citing the absence of ticket recovery and minor inconsistencies in the wife’s statements regarding the boarding and incident dates. Consequently, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant argued that the deceased was indeed a bona fide passenger who had purchased a valid ticket, which was lost along with his personal bag during the accident. She contended that she had discharged her initial burden of proof by filing a detailed affidavit detailing these facts.
Conversely, the respondent (Union of India) argued that without the recovery of a valid ticket, the claimant could not prove the deceased was a passenger under the law, and therefore, the Railway Administration was not liable to pay compensation.
The Court’s Analysis
Analyzing the statutory framework, the Supreme Court highlighted that Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, provides for “no-fault liability” and carries a beneficial legislative intent. The Court emphasized that progressive and social welfare legislation must receive a liberal, purposive, and wider interpretation rather than a narrow and literal one.
To support this, the Court cited several precedents, including Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, X2 v. State (NCT of Delhi), and Workmen v. American Express International Banking Corpn., reiterating that “Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of ‘bread and butter’ statutes. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions.”
On the core issue of the burden of proof when a ticket is missing, the Court relied on its landmark ruling in Union of India v. Rina Devi (subsequently approved in Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India and Kamukayi v. Union of India), which established that:
“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 and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances.”
The Court observed that the appellant had successfully discharged her initial burden by filing her affidavit, shifting the burden onto the Railways, which failed to show that the deceased was a ticketless traveler. Under the principle of preponderance of probabilities, the Court ruled in favor of the claimant.
Furthermore, the Court pointed out that under the Indian Railway Commercial Manual and the Operating Manual for Indian Railways, the railway administration is mandated to check tickets at multiple stages and prevent unauthorized or footboard travel. The Court noted that had the Railways properly executed these regulations, there would be records of the deceased’s ticket being checked, saving his family from carrying this matter to the highest court.
The Court also highlighted the chronic issue of overcrowding, referencing several recent news reports of passenger deaths due to overcrowding across Mumbai, Delhi, Surat, and Chennai. The Court observed that while safety safeguards are thoroughly planned on paper, their execution “leaves much to be desired” and suggested employing the youth of today to enhance manpower and safety.
In a progressive observation on social equality, the Court also critiqued the outdated nomenclature of “second class passenger” found in the manuals, suggesting that:
“the class connotation be attached to the coach and not to the passenger, in recognition of the history of class divisions in our country and the same being offensive to the spirit of the Constitution of India.”
The Decision
Holding that the lower courts erred in denying compensation, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the High Court and the RCT.
The Court awarded a compensation of Rs 8,00,000 to the appellant, in line with Schedule I of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, as amended. The Court directed the appellant’s counsel to furnish bank details to the Additional Solicitor General’s office, which must ensure the transmission of the compensation within four weeks. Failing this, the amount will carry an interest rate of 8% per annum from the date the claim petition was filed on March 18, 2016.
Case Details:
Case Title: Lata v. Union of India & Anr.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 30726 of 2025)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh
Date: July 17, 2026
