Holding that a missing ticket cannot by itself defeat a claim for railway compensation, the Supreme Court has restored a Rs 8 lakh award to the parents of a man who died after falling from a train near Ahmedabad, setting aside the Gujarat High Court’s reversal.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that the mere absence of a ticket with an injured or deceased passenger does not negate the claim that he was a bona fide passenger, and has restored the Railway Claims Tribunal’s award of Rs 8 lakh with interest to the parents of a man who fell from a train in 2017 [Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana and Another v. Union of India].
A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar allowed the parents’ appeal against a July 15, 2025 judgment of the Gujarat High Court that had set aside the award. The judgment was authored by Justice Chandurkar.
The case
On September 27, 2017, Maheshbhai fell from a train while travelling in the general compartment between Sabarmati and Ahmedabad railway stations. He suffered multiple grievous injuries, was hospitalised, and died on October 31, 2017. His parents claimed compensation under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, although no ticket was found on him.
On June 17, 2022, the Railway Claims Tribunal treated the fall as an “untoward incident” and awarded Rs 8 lakh with interest at 9% a year from the date of the incident. The Gujarat High Court reversed the award, mainly because the train details had not been disclosed, no ticket was found with the victim, and it relied on a Divisional Railway Manager’s report dated May 17, 2018.
Burden shifts to the Railways
Applying the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Union of India v. Rina Devi, the Court reiterated that a claimant need only discharge an initial burden through an affidavit of the relevant facts, after which the burden moves to the Railways:
“Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances.”
The Court said that “mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger.” It noted that the Railways’ witnesses had not searched the victim’s pockets, and that after a month-long hospitalisation, it was unlikely the ticket would have been preserved.
Delayed report cannot be used against claimants
The Court also refused to let the Railways rely on the investigation report, which was prepared about seven months after the incident:
“Delay in conducting the inquiry could not be attributed to the claimants and the Railways cannot seek to take advantage of the delay on their part in preparing the investigation report.”
Railway Compensation: The Directions
“The award dated 17.06.2022 passed in O.A. No.11 of 2018 by the Tribunal is restored. The award be now satisfied by the Railways within a period of thirty days.”
The Tribunal’s award carries interest at 9% a year from September 27, 2017.
ALSO READ: Standing Near the Train Door Due to Peak-Hour Rush Is Not Negligence: Bombay High Court
Why The Railway Compensation Judgment Matters
Railway accident compensation is a no-fault, beneficial scheme, and claims are often defeated on a technicality: the ticket is lost in the fall, at the hospital, or never recovered. The judgment reaffirms that a family need not produce the ticket to prove that the deceased was a passenger. Once they file an affidavit, it is for the Railways to show otherwise.
The ruling also checks a common defence. A report prepared long after the incident, at the Railways’ own pace, cannot be turned against the claimants. With a 30-day deadline for payment, the parents should finally be paid nine years after their son’s death.
Case Title: Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana and Another v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 12951 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: September 25, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi for the appellants; Additional Solicitor General Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar for the Union of India