The Supreme Court has restored ₹8 lakh in compensation to the parents of a passenger who died after falling from a train, holding that the absence of his ticket did not, by itself, prove he was travelling without one. The Court also declined to rely on a Railway investigation report prepared about seven months after the incident, without an explanation for the delay.
A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar set aside a Gujarat High Court order that had reversed the award made by the Railway Claims Tribunal. The Railways must satisfy the restored award within 30 days.
Buy Now: Supreme Court Judgments E-Magazine – 5 Month Combo (2026) (1st February – 30th June 2026)
Maheshbhai was travelling towards Surat on September 27, 2017, when he fell from a train between Sabarmati and Ahmedabad railway stations. According to the claim filed by his parents, he was travelling in a crowded general compartment and lost his balance following a sudden jerk. He sustained grievous injuries and died on October 31, 2017, after more than a month in hospital.
His parents applied for compensation under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. On June 17, 2022, the Tribunal found that he was a bona fide passenger who had suffered an accidental fall amounting to an untoward incident. It awarded the parents ₹8 lakh with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the incident until the date of its order.
The Railways challenged that decision. On July 15, 2025, the Gujarat High Court allowed its appeal, placing weight on the absence of a recovered ticket, the lack of particulars identifying the train, and a subsequent Railway investigation report. The parents then approached the Supreme Court.
The parents maintained that their son had bought a valid ticket, but it was lost along with other belongings after the accident. His father stated on oath that Maheshbhai used to purchase a ticket before travelling. The claim application also recorded that his ticket, handkerchief, wristwatch, comb and approximately ₹800 to ₹900 in cash were missing.
The Railways disputed that he was a bona fide passenger. It argued that no ticket had been recovered, no eyewitness had been examined and the train from which he allegedly fell had not been identified. It also contended that the injuries were self-inflicted and therefore fell outside the compensation provision in Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
Absence of Ticket Was Not Conclusive
The Supreme Court applied its earlier ruling in Union of India v. Rina Devi: a claimant can initially support a claim that the injured or deceased person was a bona fide passenger through an affidavit setting out the relevant facts. The burden then shifts to the Railways, and the question must be decided in light of the evidence and surrounding circumstances. A missing ticket alone does not defeat the claim.
In this case, the father’s sworn statement discharged the parents’ initial burden, the Court held. Neither of the two Railway witnesses had searched Maheshbhai’s pockets for a ticket. One had seen him only after he was injured, while the Station Superintendent said Maheshbhai was unable to speak when assistance was arranged.
The Bench also considered the month-long hospitalisation. In those circumstances, it said, the High Court had given undue importance to the failure to produce a ticket. On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal was justified in finding that Maheshbhai was a bona fide passenger. The Court held that the principle of strict liability under Section 124-A applied.
Delayed Investigation Report Rejected
The incident occurred on September 27, 2017, and the parents filed their claim on January 12, 2018. The Supreme Court noted that the process of preparing the Railway investigation report began only after the authorities received notice of the claim. The report was eventually prepared on May 17, 2018, about seven months after the accident.
The Railways offered no explanation for that delay. Referring to the requirement for a prompt inquiry under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, the Court held that the Railways could not benefit from its own delay. It therefore declined to rely on the report against the parents.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court restored the Tribunal’s award of ₹8 lakh with the interest it had granted. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
