New Delhi: The Supreme Court has restored an award of compensation to the parents of a young man who died after falling from a moving train, holding that the mere absence of a recovered railway ticket cannot defeat a claim of bona fide passenger status, particularly where the victim remained hospitalised for over a month before succumbing to his injuries, making preservation of the ticket unlikely in any event.
A bench of Justice Atul S. Chandurkar and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, was hearing an appeal filed by Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana and his wife against the judgment dated 15.07.2025 of a Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court, which had set aside the award passed in their favour by the Railway Claims Tribunal.
The appellants' son, Maheshbhai, travelling in the general compartment of a train towards Surat on 27.09.2017, fell from the train between Sabarmati and Ahmedabad Railway Stations, sustaining grievous injuries. He was hospitalised for over a month and succumbed to his injuries on 31.10.2017.
The Railway Claims Tribunal, by its award dated 17.06.2022, held the incident to be an "untoward incident" and granted the claimants compensation of Rs.8 lakh with 9% annual interest. On the Union of India's appeal, the High Court reversed this finding, holding that there was no evidence establishing that the victim had actually fallen from a train, and that the incident therefore could not be classified as an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Senior Advocate for the appellants, submitted that the victim was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid ticket that was subsequently lost, that the burden to prove he was an unauthorised passenger lay on the Railways, and that the investigation report relied upon by the Railways, prepared more than seven months after the incident in violation of the requirement under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 that such inquiries be conducted immediately, deserved no credence. Mr. Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar, Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India, defended the High Court's judgment, submitting that no ticket was recovered from the victim, no eyewitness was examined, and that the injury was self-inflicted, disentitling the claimants to compensation under Section 124-A of the Act.
Examining the record, the Court noted that the claim application had specifically pleaded that the victim's ticket, along with his handkerchief, wristwatch, comb and cash, had been lost, and that his father had deposed on oath that his son always purchased a ticket before travelling. The two witnesses examined by the Railways, an Assistant Sub-Inspector and the Station Superintendent, both admitted in cross-examination that they had never searched the victim's pockets for a ticket. Relying on its earlier decision in Union of India v. Rina Devi, 2018 INSC 469, the Court reiterated that mere absence of a ticket does not negate a claim of bona fide passenger status, the initial burden being dischargeable by the claimant's affidavit, after which it shifts to the Railways, a burden the Railways had failed to discharge in this case.
“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 further held, relying on Kalandi Charan Sahoo and Another v. General Manager, South-East Central Railways, Bilaspur, that the investigation report prepared over seven months after the incident, in breach of the Rules requiring immediate inquiry, deserved to be discounted, and that the delay could not be attributed to the claimants. Applying the principle of strict liability under Section 124-A of the Railways Act as explained in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Others, 2008 INSC 577, the Court held that the Tribunal had rightly granted compensation and that the High Court was not justified in reversing the award merely on the ground that the ticket could not be produced.
Accordingly, the High Court's judgment was set aside, the Tribunal's award of Rs.8 lakh with interest was restored, with a direction that it be satisfied by the Railways within thirty days, and the appeal was allowed, with the parties left to bear their own costs.
Appearances:
For the Appellants: Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Senior Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar, Additional Solicitor General.
Case Title: Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana and Another vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 12951 of 2026
