Supreme Court restores railway accident compensation, saying a missing ticket cannot defeat a passenger's claim

Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of judgment: 25 September 2026
Case: C.A. No. 12951/2026
Parties: Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana Vs Union Of India
Outcome: Allowed

Summary

The Supreme Court on 25 September 2026 restored a Rs 8 lakh compensation award to the parents of a man who fell from a train and died of his injuries. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar (judgment by Justice Chandurkar) held that the Gujarat High Court was wrong to reverse the award only because no ticket was produced. It held that the claimants' sworn statement shifted the burden to the Railways, which failed to discharge it, and that the Railways' delayed investigation report could not be used against the claimants.

The man was travelling to Surat via Ahmedabad in the general compartment of a train on 27 September 2017 when he fell between Sabarmati and Ahmedabad stations. He was taken to hospital and died on 31 October 2017. His parents applied to the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, saying he had a valid ticket which was lost. On 17 June 2022 the Tribunal held that he was a bona fide passenger who had met an 'untoward incident' and awarded Rs 8 lakh with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the incident till the date of the order.

The Union of India appealed under Section 23 of the Act. On 15 July 2025 a Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court allowed the appeal, holding that there was no evidence of the fall from the train and that the incident could therefore not be called an 'untoward incident' as defined in Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. He relied principally on the claimants' failure to disclose details of the train and on the absence of a ticket. The parents appealed to the Supreme Court.

The question before the court

Can compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 be denied only because the victim's ticket was not found or produced?
Who bears the burden of proof once the claimant files an affidavit that the victim was a bona fide passenger?
What weight can the Railways' investigation report get when it was prepared long after the incident?

What each side argued

For the claimants: the victim was a bona fide passenger who fell from the train, and it was specifically pleaded that his ticket was lost, so the burden was on the Railways to show he was unauthorised. The report under Rule 6 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 came more than seven months after the incident, although Rule 7 requires such an investigation to be completed immediately. They relied on Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. General Manager, South-East Central Railways and Union of India v. Rina Devi.
For the Railways: the claim application disclosed no details of the train travel, no eyewitness was examined and no ticket was found on the victim. The Station Superintendent's evidence was that no train was moving at the relevant time. The injury was therefore self-inflicted and no compensation was payable under Section 124-A.

The court's decision

The Court held that the High Court committed an error in setting aside the Tribunal's award. The claim application said the victim had a valid ticket and, because of heavy rush, lost his balance and fell. His father testified on oath that his son always bought a ticket before travelling and that this one was lost. He accepted the suggestion that his son was standing near the door of the compartment. The Railways examined an Assistant Sub-Inspector and the Station Superintendent, and both admitted that they had not searched the victim's pockets for a ticket. The Station Superintendent also said that, although he gave a memorandum the same day, no investigation was made by him later.

Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi, the Court said that the mere absence of a ticket does not negate the claim that a victim was a bona fide passenger. The initial burden on the claimant can be discharged by an affidavit of the relevant facts, after which the burden shifts to the Railways, and the issue is decided on the facts and attending circumstances of each case. The victim had been hospitalised for more than a month, so it was unlikely that the claimants would have preserved a ticket. The father's sworn statement discharged the claimants' initial burden, the Railways failed to rebut it, and on a preponderance of probabilities the victim was a bona fide passenger. The High Court gave undue importance to the missing ticket and ignored the father's statement and the hospitalisation. The principle of strict liability under Section 124-A, as held in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, was clearly attracted.

The Court also took note that the claim was filed on 12 January 2018 and that the Railways began communicating about the Rule 6 investigation report only after being served with notice. The report, prepared on 17 May 2018, came about seven months after the incident, and the Railways offered no explanation for the delay. Following Kalandi Charan Sahoo, where the lack of an immediate inquiry was held to be a factor against the Railways, the Court chose to ignore the report, which could not stand in the way of the claimants.

The High Court's order of 15 July 2025 in First Appeal No. 4716 of 2022 was set aside and the Tribunal's award of 17 June 2022 in O.A. No. 11 of 2018 was restored. The Railways must satisfy the award within thirty days. The appeal was allowed, the parties bear their own costs and pending applications were disposed of.

Precedents referred to

Union of India v. Rina Devi, 2018 INSC 469
Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others, 2008 INSC 577
Kalandi Charan Sahoo and Another v. General Manager, South-East Central Railways, Bilaspur (Civil Appeal No. 5608 of 2017)

Provisions referred to

Section 124-A, Railways Act, 1989
Section 123(c)(2), Railways Act, 1989
Sections 16 and 23, Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987
Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003

Read the full judgment (PDF) ↗

Official source: Supreme Court of India. The PDF above is a copy from an open dataset of the court's public records.

This summary is prepared for general assistance only. It may contain errors and is not legal advice — rely on the full judgment.

Railway Accidents Compensation Untoward Incident Burden Of Proof Strict Liability

Supreme Court ·25 Sep 2026 ·Criminal Procedure

Supreme Court: Accused in a CBI case may inspect unrelied documents and seek specific ones at trial; stage depends on the document

The question: At what stage can an accused obtain documents the prosecution has not relied upon: at framing of charges, or later in the trial?

The Supreme Court on 25 September 2026 set aside orders of a CBI Special Judge in Ranchi that had directed the agency to produce a list of documents sought by an accused at the stage of framing of charges. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran did not decide the wider question of whether an accused can demand 'unrelied upon' documents at that stage. It proceeded on the premise that an accused is entitled to the documents available with the prosecuting agency to shape his defence, held that the stage at which they can be sought has to be looked at document by document, and laid down a practical route for each category sought. The respondent, Anil Dixit, an accused in a case registered by the CBI (RC 12A/2014-R), had applied under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for ten categories of documents. They included seizure memos, the CBI's daily diary, FIR and letter dispatch registers for October and November 2014, the source information report and its verification, all documents seized but not relied upon in the charge sheet, minutes of several Building Committee meetings, videography of evaluation committee meetings, the minutes of a meeting on 21 January 2012, the expression of interest and technical bid, and the appointment files of two architect firms that were named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted. The Special Judge No. 1, CBI, Ranchi, allowed the application on 21 September 2019. The CBI filed a compliance report producing some documents, resisting others and stating that some were not in its possession. A further application led to an order of 18 July 2022, which the impugned order affirmed. The CBI then came to the Supreme Court.

Disposed of Crl.A. No. 4618/2026