.jpeg){kind=small}
Case Snapshot
Case Name: Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana and Another v. Union of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 1056
Bench: Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Date of Judgment: September 25, 2026
Area of Law: Railway Claims — Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 — Untoward Incident — Bona Fide Passenger — Compensation
The Judgment in One Line
The Supreme Court restored the Railway Tribunal's compensation award, holding that mere absence of a ticket does not disprove bona fide passenger status and the Railways failed to rebut the claimant's sworn evidence.
Why this Judgement Matters
This judgment is a significant reaffirmation of the strict liability principle under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. It clarifies that a claimant need only discharge the initial burden by filing an affidavit of relevant facts, after which the burden shifts to the Railways. The judgment also cautions against placing undue reliance on investigation reports prepared after inordinate delay. It protects the rights of victims and their families in railway accident claims and prevents technical objections from defeating genuine compensation claims. It will guide Railway Claims Tribunals and High Courts in appreciating evidence in untoward incident cases.
Background
The appellants are the parents of Maheshbhai, who on September 27, 2017, while travelling to Surat via Ahmedabad, fell from a train between Sabarmati and Ahmedabad Railway Stations due to a sudden jerk and jolt. He sustained grievous injuries and succumbed on October 31, 2017. The parents filed a claim under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
The Railway Claims Tribunal allowed the claim on June 17, 2022, holding that Maheshbhai was a victim of an untoward incident and awarding Rs. 8 lakhs with 9% interest. The Union of India appealed. The Gujarat High Court, by order dated July 15, 2025, reversed the award, holding that there was no evidence of the fall and that the incident was not an untoward incident under Section 123(c)(2). The parents appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Court
Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger despite the ticket not being recovered.
Whether the High Court erred in reversing the Tribunal's award based on absence of ticket and travel details.
Whether the delayed investigation report under Rule 6 of the Railway Passengers Rules, 2003 could be relied upon.
Whether the principle of strict liability under Section 124-A of the Railways Act applies.
What Did the Supreme Court Hold?
Initial Burden Discharged by Claimants
The claim application specifically pleaded that the victim was travelling with a valid ticket, which was lost along with other belongings.
The victim's father deposed on oath that his son always purchased a ticket before travelling and that the ticket was lost.
The Supreme Court held that this was sufficient to discharge the initial burden under the principle laid down in Union of India v. Rina Devi.
Burden Shifted to Railways
Once the initial burden was discharged, the burden shifted to the Railways to prove that the victim was not a bona fide passenger.
The Railways examined two witnesses, both of whom admitted they had not searched the victim's pockets for a ticket.
No material was brought on record to disbelieve the claimants' sworn statement.
The Court held that the Railways failed to discharge the shifted burden.
Absence of Ticket Not Fatal
The Court reaffirmed that mere absence of a ticket with the victim does not negate the claim of bona fide passenger status.
The victim was hospitalised for over a month before succumbing to injuries. It was unlikely that the ticket would have been preserved.
On preponderance of probabilities, the Court concluded that the victim was a bona fide passenger.
Delayed Investigation Report Ignored
The untoward incident occurred on September 27, 2017. The investigation report under Rule 6 was prepared on May 17, 2018—nearly seven months later.
Rule 7 requires immediate completion and expeditious submission of the report. No explanation was offered for the delay.
Relying on Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. General Manager, South-East Central Railways, the Court held that the delayed report could not be relied upon.
The delay was attributed to the Railways, and they could not take advantage of their own lapses.
Strict Liability Under Section 124-A
The Court held that the principle of strict liability under Section 124-A, as laid down in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, was clearly attracted.
The Railways could not escape liability by claiming self-inflicted injury without evidence.
Key Legal Principles
Initial burden on claimant: The claimant can discharge the initial burden by filing an affidavit of relevant facts.
Burden shifts to Railways: Once the initial burden is discharged, the burden shifts to the Railways to prove the victim was not a bona fide passenger.
Absence of ticket not conclusive: Mere absence of a ticket does not negate bona fide passenger status.
Delayed investigation report: A report prepared after inordinate delay, in violation of Rule 7, cannot be relied upon by the Railways.
Strict liability: Section 124-A imposes strict liability on the Railways for untoward incidents.
Preponderance of probabilities: Compensation claims are decided on preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
No self-inflicted injury without evidence: The Railways must prove self-inflicted injury; mere assertion is insufficient.
Important Precedents
Union of India v. Rina Devi (2018): Held that mere absence of ticket does not negate bona fide passenger claim; initial burden on claimant, then shifts to Railways. Relied upon.
Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. General Manager, South-East Central Railways (2017): Held that absence of immediate inquiry under the Rules is a factor against the Railways. Relied upon.
Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008): Held that Section 124-A imposes strict liability on Railways. Relied upon.
Practical Impact
For advocates, this judgment provides a clear precedent that absence of a ticket is not fatal to a railway compensation claim. It will be cited in cases where Railway Tribunals or High Courts reject claims solely on the ground that no ticket was recovered. For litigants, it reinforces that a sworn affidavit by the claimant can shift the burden to the Railways. For law students, it illustrates the application of strict liability and the shifting of burden in railway accident claims. The judgment also cautions against relying on delayed investigation reports.
Lawcurb Quick Insight
The judgment clarifies that the Railways cannot rely on a delayed investigation report prepared after the claim application was filed. The delay of seven months was fatal to the report's credibility.
Lawcurb Practice Note
In railway compensation claims, always file a detailed affidavit stating that the victim had purchased a ticket and that it was lost. This discharges the initial burden and shifts the onus to the Railways.
Remember this Ratio
Mere absence of a ticket does not defeat a bona fide passenger claim; the initial burden on the claimant can be discharged by affidavit, after which the burden shifts to the Railways.
Final Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
The High Court's order dated July 15, 2025, was set aside.
The Railway Claims Tribunal's award dated June 17, 2022, was restored.
The Railways were directed to satisfy the award within 30 days.
Parties were left to bear their own costs.
Lawcurb Verdict
This judgment is a significant reaffirmation of the strict liability principle under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. By restoring the Tribunal's award and holding that absence of a ticket is not fatal, the Supreme Court has protected the rights of victims' families. The ruling also cautions against reliance on delayed investigation reports. A well-reasoned and compassionate judgment.
Exam Lens
Question 1: What is the initial burden on a claimant in a railway accident compensation case?
Answer: The initial burden is on the claimant to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. This can be discharged by filing an affidavit of relevant facts. Once this is done, the burden shifts to the Railways to prove that the victim was not a bona fide passenger. This was held in Union of India v. Rina Devi and reaffirmed in Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana.
Question 2: Can a claim be rejected merely because no ticket was found on the victim?
Answer: No. Mere absence of a ticket does not negate the claim of bona fide passenger status. The Court must consider the overall circumstances, including the claimant's sworn statement and the possibility of the ticket being lost. In Sukhabhai, the victim was hospitalised for over a month, making it unlikely that the ticket would be preserved.
Question 3: What is the effect of a delayed investigation report under Rule 6 of the Railway Passengers Rules, 2003?
Answer: A report prepared after inordinate delay, in violation of Rule 7 which requires immediate completion, cannot be relied upon by the Railways. In Sukhabhai, the report was prepared seven months after the incident, and no explanation was offered. The Court ignored the report and restored the Tribunal's award.
This report is prepared by Lawcurb for educational and informational purposes only. It is a concise summary of the judgment and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to refer to the original judgment before relying on any legal proposition.