Supreme Court: Absence of Ticket Alone Cannot Defeat Railway Compensation Claim for Bona Fide Passenger

In a significant ruling that reinforces the protective framework of the Railways Act for accident victims, the Supreme Court of India has held that the mere non-recovery of a railway ticket cannot defeat a compensation claim where the claimant has discharged the initial burden of proving that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar restored an ₹8 lakh compensation award to the parents of a young man who died after falling from a moving train, setting aside a contrary judgment of the Gujarat High Court.

The Tragic Incident and the Legal Battle

Maheshbhai, the son of appellants Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana and his wife, was travelling in the general compartment of a train bound for Surat via Ahmedabad on September 27, 2017. Due to heavy rush, he lost his balance and fell from the train between Sabarmati and Ahmedabad railway stations. He sustained multiple grievous injuries and was hospitalised for over a month, succumbing to his injuries on October 31, 2017.

The parents filed a claim application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 before the Railway Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal, by award dated June 17, 2022, held that Maheshbhai was a victim of an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 and awarded compensation of ₹8 lakh with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the incident.

The Union of India challenged this before the Gujarat High Court. A learned Single Judge, by order dated July 15, 2025, allowed the appeal, holding that there was no evidence of the victim having fallen from the train and that the incident could not be termed an "untoward incident." The parents then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Arguments: Burden of Proof and Delayed Investigation

Senior Advocate Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, appearing for the appellants, argued that it had been specifically pleaded that the victim was travelling with a valid ticket which was lost along with other personal belongings. He contended that once this was pleaded, the burden shifted to the Railways to prove that the victim was an unauthorised passenger—a burden the Railways failed to discharge. He also pointed out that the investigation report under Rule 6 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 was prepared more than seven months after the incident, in clear violation of Rule 7 which requires immediate inquiry.

Additional Solicitor General Mr. Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar, for the Union of India, supported the High Court's order. He submitted that no eyewitness was examined, no ticket was recovered from the victim, and the Station Superintendent had deposed that there was no train movement at the relevant time. He argued that the injury was "self-inflicted" and thus fell outside the scope of Section 124-A of the Railways Act.

The Supreme Court's Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court carefully examined the record and found that the High Court had erred. The Court noted that the claim application specifically pleaded that the victim's ticket, handkerchief, wristwatch, comb, and cash of ₹800-900 were lost. The victim's father deposed on oath that his son always purchased a ticket before travelling. Two railway witnesses—an Assistant Sub-Inspector and the Station Superintendent—admitted in cross-examination that they had not searched the victim's pockets for a ticket.

Relying on its earlier decision in Union of India v. Rina Devi (2018) , the Court reiterated:

"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."

Applying this principle, the Court held that the father's testimony discharged the initial burden , and since the Railways' witnesses never checked the victim's pockets, the Railways failed to rebut the claim. The Court also observed that the victim remained hospitalised for over a month before his death, making it "quite unlikely that the railway ticket would have been preserved by the claimants."

The Court further noted the unexplained delay in preparing the investigation report—nearly seven months after the incident—and, relying on Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. General Manager, South-East Central Railways (2017) , held that such delayed reports cannot be used against the claimants.

Key Observations from the Judgment

The Court made several important observations:

  • "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 principle of ' strict liability ' flowing from Section 124-A of the Act of 1989 as held in Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Others is clearly attracted."
  • "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."

The Final Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the Gujarat High Court's order dated July 15, 2025, and restored the Railway Claims Tribunal's award dated June 17, 2022. The Court directed the Railways to satisfy the award within thirty days. The civil appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

This judgment reaffirms that the strict liability regime under Section 124-A of the Railways Act must be applied liberally to fulfil its remedial purpose. It sends a clear message that technical defences based on missing tickets will not be allowed to defeat legitimate claims, especially when claimants have discharged their initial evidentiary burden through sworn affidavits and other supporting material.