The Supreme Court has held that the mere non-recovery of a train ticket cannot be the sole ground for denying compensation to the family of a passenger who dies in an untoward railway accident.
Setting aside the concurrent decisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) and the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh ruled that compensation provisions under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation consistent with their humanitarian objective.
The Bench allowed the appeal filed by the widow of a deceased passenger and directed the Railways to pay ₹8 lakh as statutory compensation within four weeks, failing which the amount would carry 8% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition.
Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026
Background of the Case
The case arose from the death of Chandrakant Thakkar, who was travelling from Raipur to Ahmedabad on 28 November 2015 aboard the Ahmedabad-Howrah Mail. According to his widow, he accidentally fell from the moving train between Khandbada and Khatgaon and died on the spot. A compensation claim was filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, asserting that the deceased was a bona fide passenger who had purchased a valid ticket, but the ticket was lost along with his travel bag during the accident.
The Railway Claims Tribunal acknowledged that the incident qualified as an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act but rejected compensation on the ground that the claimant had failed to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger because no ticket was recovered. The Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed this view, also noting an inconsistency regarding the date of travel mentioned in the pleadings and the widow’s testimony.
The widow then approached the Supreme Court.
Beneficial Legislation Must Be Interpreted Liberally
The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 124A of the Railways Act embodies a “no-fault liability” regime. The provision was enacted to provide speedy compensation to victims of railway accidents without requiring proof of negligence on the part of the railway administration. Being a beneficial welfare legislation, it should not be interpreted narrowly or technically.
The Bench relied on several earlier decisions, including Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, Union of India v. Rina Devi, Kamukayi v. Union of India, and X v. State (NCT of Delhi), reiterating that where two interpretations of a beneficial statute are possible, courts must adopt the one that advances the legislative purpose and protects beneficiaries.
According to the Court, welfare statutes are intended to secure substantive justice and should not be defeated by procedural or technical shortcomings.
Absence of Ticket Does Not Automatically Negate Bona Fide Passenger Status
The Bench reaffirmed the legal position laid down in Rina Devi, holding that the absence of a ticket on the body of a deceased passenger is not conclusive proof that the person was travelling without authority. Instead, the claimant initially discharges the burden by filing an affidavit setting out relevant facts, after which the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut those assertions.
The Court observed that the governing standard in such proceedings is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal trials.
It noted that in the present case the widow had consistently stated that the deceased had purchased a valid ticket, which was kept in a travel bag that went missing after the accident. Since there was no evidence suggesting that the deceased was travelling ticketless or that any statutory exception applied, the Courts below had erred in rejecting the claim solely because the ticket could not be recovered.
Supreme Court Examines Railway Safety Obligations
The judgment goes beyond the individual dispute and contains an extensive examination of the duties cast upon the Railways under statutory provisions and departmental manuals.
The Court referred to various provisions of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual and the Operating Manual for Indian Railways, which require railway staff to:
- prevent ticketless travel,
- ensure passengers are safely accommodated,
- avoid overcrowding,
- ensure doors are properly secured before trains depart,
- prevent passengers from travelling on footboards or roofs,
- treat passengers courteously, and
- prioritise passenger safety throughout the journey.
The Bench observed that strict implementation of these procedures would substantially reduce disputes regarding whether an accident victim possessed a valid ticket.
Court Highlights Persistent Problem of Overcrowding
In a notable feature of the judgment, the Supreme Court discussed the recurring problem of overcrowding in Indian Railways.
The Bench referred to multiple recent incidents across the country involving passengers falling from overcrowded trains, stampedes at railway stations, and deaths caused by excessive crowding. The judgment includes a tabulated compilation of such incidents to demonstrate that overcrowding remains a systemic safety concern.
While acknowledging the immense scale of railway operations—covering over 69,000 kilometres of track, carrying over 7.2 billion passengers annually, and employing around 12.3 lakh personnel—the Court observed that even if such accidents are statistically few, each represents an irreversible tragedy for affected families.
Responsibility Is Shared
The Court clarified that responsibility cannot rest solely upon the Railways. Passengers also have a duty to exercise caution and avoid dangerous practices such as boarding moving trains or travelling on footboards.
Nevertheless, the Bench observed that the Railways, being an instrumentality of the welfare State, must strengthen implementation of safety protocols and improve enforcement against overcrowding. It also suggested that expanding railway manpower could both enhance passenger safety and generate employment opportunities for the country’s youth.
Suggestion on Railway Terminology
In an interesting observation, the Court suggested reconsidering the continued use of the expression “second class passenger” in railway manuals.
It observed that while the terminology historically refers to the class of travel, the expression carries unnecessary social connotations. The Court suggested that the classification should instead attach to the coach rather than the passenger, in keeping with the constitutional vision of equality and dignity.
Final Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the widow had discharged her initial burden through her affidavit and surrounding circumstances. The Court found no evidence to disbelieve her assertion that the deceased had purchased a valid ticket which was lost during the accident.
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.
