T HROUGH the judgement of the caseSukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana and Another v. Union of India, delivered on September 25, 2026, in a big relief to Railway travelers, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar (who, authored the judgement) have, at the Supreme Court held that in case of death of passenger during Railway travel, compensation will be payable, even if the ticket is missing. The appellants in this case are the unfortunate parents of one Maheshbhai, who while travelling to Surat via Ahmedabad, on September 27, 2017, was a victim of an ‘untoward incident’ in the general compartment of the train, he fell down on account of a sudden jerk and jolt when the said train was between Sabarmati and Ahmedabad Railway Stations. He sustained multiple grievous injuries and was admitted in hospital, however succumbed to his injuries on October 31, 2017.

 

The claim application preferred by the parents under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 was allowed by the Railway Claims Tribunal on June 17, 2922. It held that Maheshbhai was victim of an ‘untoward incident’ and had suffered an accidental fall. The claimants were held entitled to compensation of Rs 8 Lakh along with 9 pc per annum interest from the date of the incident till the date of the order. The Union of India, being aggrieved, preferred an appeal under section 23 of the Act of 1987. A Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court, by the order dated July 15, 2025 allowed the said appeal by holding that - there was no evidence as to fall of victim from the train and, therefore, the incident could not be called an ‘untoward incident’ as defined in section 123 (c)( 2)of the Railways Act, 1989. This led to appeal by the aggrieved appellants. Senior counsel Nachiketa Joshi, appearing for the claimants submitted that the High Court committed an error in reversing the judgment of the Tribunal by which the claim application preferred by the claimants had been allowed.

 

The victim was a bona fide passenger, who had a fall from the train in which he was travelling between Sabarmati and Ahmedabad Railway Stations. Merely on the ground that travel details of the victim, such as name of the train in which the victim was travelling having not been disclosed, has weighed with the High Court. He submitted that it having been specifically pleaded by the claimants that the victim was travelling with a valid ticket, which was lost, the burden to prove that the victim was an unauthorised passenger on the Railways. No material was brought on record by the Railways to disbelieve the claim of the claimants.

 

The report submitted under Rule 6 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 as amended in 2007 was after a period of more than seven months from the occurrence of the untoward incident as per Rule 7 of the Rules of 2003, such investigation was required to be completed immediately and report in that regard was required to be submitted expeditiously. Referring to the decision Kalindi Charan Sahoo and Another v. General Manager, South- East Central Railways, Bilaspur (Civil Appeal 5608/20217 decided on April 25, 2017) ,the counsel submitted that on account of belated preparation of investigation report, the same could not be relied upon. He further referred to the evidence led by the claimants before the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly held that the victim was a bona fide passenger.

 

By narrowly interpreting the provisions of the Act of 1989, the HC erred in reversing the award passed by the Tribunal. He also placed reliance on the decision- Union of India v. Rina Devi –(2018) INSC 469. He therefore, submitted that in view of the material brought on record, the award passed by the Tribunal ought to be restored and the impugned order passed by the HC be set aside. According to the Supreme Court, in its view that the HC committed an error in setting aside the award Tribunal passed by the Tribunal. The claimants were rightly held entitled to receive compensation under section 124- A of the Act of 1989 and the awardof the Tribunal deserves to berestored. A perusal of the claimapplication preferred by theclaimants under section 16 of Act of 1987 indicates that the victimwas travelling with a valid andproper railway ticket onSeptember 7, 2017. While he wastravelling to Surat in the general compartment of the train, onaccount of heavy rush, he lost hisbalance and fell down. In the decision, Rina Devi, theSupreme Court has held that mereabsence of with the victim a ticket would not negate the claim that the victim was a bona fide passenger. The initial burden can bedischarged by the claimant by filing an affidavit and after that theburden would shift on Railways. Another material factor that isto be borne in mind is that the untoward incident took place onSeptember 27, 2017, which left thevictim with grievous injuries. Hewas hospitalised thereafter for aperiod of more than a month.

 

He, however, died on October 31, 2017. In normal course, when the victim was undergoing medical treatment, it is quite unlikely that therailway ticket would have beenpreserved by the claimants. In anyevent, the Railways failed to discharge the burden which hadshifted to them in view of theclaimant’s statement on oath. Taking an overall view of the matter, the Tribunal proceeded to hold that the victim was a bona fidepassenger and that absence of theticket cannot be held against theclaimants. The claimants hadspecifically pleaded that the victim’s ticket , handkerchief, wristwatch ,comb and Rs 800 in cashwere lost. The principle of ‘Strict liability’ flowing from section 124-A of the Act of 1989 is clearly attracted. The Railways have not explained the delay in preparingthe investigation report.