Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
Lata – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition(Civil) No. 30726 of 2025)
Decided On : 17-07-2026
Railway Act 1989 – Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A – Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 – Schedule I – Death of passenger in untoward incident – Rejection of claim for compensation for non-production of journey ticket – Beneficial legislations are to receive purposive and liberal construction in furtherance of intentions of Legislature, as can be discerned, instead of a literal or restrictive approach being adopted – Technical approaches and lapses in procedure should not defeat welfare aim of statute as it does not befit Railways, as an instrumentality of State, to take such restrictive, pigeonhole view – Governing standard is preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt, as in criminal trials – There is statement by appellant that deceased had ticket in his bag for journey – There is no denial of deceased travelling in train and occurrence of incident – Bag in which ticket was allegedly kept, could not be recovered by Police – Merely because ticket of a train journey was not found on person of deceased, will not change his status as a bona fide passenger – Initial burden of claimant can be satisfied by way of affidavit – Courts below have erred in not awarding compensation to appellant – Compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- awarded. (Paras 8, 9, 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Deceased fell from a running train and died instantaneously due to the injuries. A claim petition was filed under the provisions of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking Rs.4,00,000 with 18% interest from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 18.03.2016. It was averred that luggage of deceased, which was misplaced and untraceable, contained ticket for journey.
Findings of Court:
Counsel for the appellant shall furnish details of bank account of the appellant to the office of ASG appearing for Union of India, who shall then ensure transmitting the details to relevant authority for payment of compensation within four weeks from date of this judgment, failing which amount shall carry interest at the rate of 8% from date of filing of claim petition.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - Mere absence of a ticket does not negate a passenger's bona fide status; initial burden on claimant can be met by affidavit (!) (!) . - Beneficial legislation must be given a purposive and liberal construction to achieve the welfare aim of the statute (!) . - Governing standard for compensation is preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt, and exceptions must not be applied restrictively (!) (!) . - Compensation for death in an untoward incident is payable under railway rules if the passenger is established as a bona fide traveler (!) . - Railways have procedural duties (e.g., ticket checks) that, if not followed, do not automatically bar compensation (!) (!) . - Claimant is entitled to Rs. 8,00,000 as compensation for the death of the passenger (!) . - Appellant (wife) is entitled to receive the compensation amount, with bank details to be furnished for transmission (!) . - Interest at 8% from the date of filing claim is payable if compensation is not transmitted within four weeks (!) . - Costs are borne by the parties themselves, and pending applications shall be closed (!) .
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. This appeal challenges the concurrent dismissal of a claim for compensation filed by the appellant as the wife of the deceased namely Chandrakant Thakkar, by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench1[Claim Application Number-OA-IIu/BPL/163/2016] (RCT) and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Principal seat at Jabalpur)2[Misc. Appeal 5861 of 2019] . The deceased was enroute from Raipur to Ahmedabad in Train No.12834 Ahmedabad-Howrah Mail on 28th November 2015 when he fell from a running train somewhere in the Khandbada-Khatgaon section and died instantaneously due to the injuries. A claim petition was filed under the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking Rs.4,00,000 with 18% interest from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 18.03.2016. It was averred that the luggage of the deceased, which was misplaced and untraceable, contained the ticket for the journey. The appellant in her affidavit had made similar statements alleging that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and was travelling to Ahmedabad, for business purposes. The wallet of the deceased, recovered by the police contained information of his son Brijesh, who was informed about the incident, but the ticket was not there in the purse.
3. The RCT denied the claim since it was not established that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. As per the Tribunal, though the accident qualified as an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railway Act 19893[1989 Act] but since the bona fides could not be established, compensation was denied. The High Court in terms of judgment dated 3rd January 2024 agreed with the findings of the Tribunal, observing that in the absence of any recovery of the belongings of the deceased, the claim had to be rejected. There was an inconsistency between her statement and the facts pleaded in the claim petition about the date of travel of the deceased. She, in her cross examination said that the deceased had boarded the train on 26th November, and information of his death was received on 27th November, however, in the claim petition, the date of journey mentioned is 28th November.
Hence, the present appeal. Heard.
4. The 1989 Act contains 16 Chapters each dealing with a specific aspect. For instance, Chapter II deals with Railway Administrations, IIA deals with Rail Land Development Authority, Chapter IV deals with construction and Maintenance of Works, Chapter VII deals with the Tribunal and Chapter VIII concerns the Carriage of Passengers. Chapter XII and XIII titled as “Accidents” and “Liability of Railway Administration for Death and Injury to Passengers due to accidents” respectively, are important for us in the present case.
5. For us in the present case, examination of Section 123, 124A, inter alia, is relevant, as such we extract the same:-
(29) “passenger” means a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket;
123 Definitions- In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,
(a) "accident" means an accident of the nature described in section 124;
(b) "dependant" means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:--
(i) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent;
… … …
(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.]
…
124. Extent of liability.— When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or has suffered a loss to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, not
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
