Railway Accident Claims | Mere Absence Of Journey Ticket Does Not Negate Status As 'Bona Fide Passenger': Supreme Court

"On preponderance of probabilities, it can be concluded that the victim was a bona fide passenger and that absence of recovery of his ticket cannot result in defeating the claim for compensation." Supreme Court, in a judgment dated September 25, 2026, held that the mere absence of a physical ticket on the person of a victim involved in an 'untoward incident' does not automatically disentitle the claimants to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed that the initial burden of proof on the claimant to establish their status as a bona fide passenger is discharged upon filing an affidavit of relevant facts, after which the burden shifts to the Railways.

Court Rejects Mechanical Interpretation Of Evidence

The matter originated from a claim filed by the parents of one Maheshbhai, who succumbed to injuries sustained after falling from a train on September 27, 2017. While the Railway Claims Tribunal had initially awarded compensation, the Gujarat High Court reversed the decision, relying on the absence of a travel ticket and lack of specific train details. The Supreme Court found this approach to be an unduly narrow interpretation of the statutory framework governing railway accidents.

Restoring The Principle Of Strict Liability

The primary issue before the court was whether the lack of a recovered ticket and vague travel details in the application were sufficient to dislodge the status of the deceased as a bona fide passenger. The court further examined the impact of delayed investigation reports prepared by the Railways under Rule 6 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003.

Shift Of Burden Regarding Bona Fide Status

Relying on the precedent in Union of India vs. Rina Devi, the Supreme Court reiterated that once a claimant files an affidavit stating that the victim was a passenger, the burden shifts to the Railways to prove otherwise. The bench noted that the victim was hospitalized for over a month, making it highly unlikely for a ticket to be preserved. By failing to examine the victim's pockets or produce evidence of unauthorized travel, the Railways failed to discharge the burden shifted upon them.

"The principle of ‘strict liability’ flowing from Section 124-A of the Act of 1989 as held in Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Others is clearly attracted."

Invalidity Of Belated Investigation Reports

The court expressed strong disapproval regarding the seven-month delay in the preparation of the investigation report by the Railways. Citing Kalandi Charan Sahoo and Another vs. General Manager, South-East Central Railways, the court held that the Railways cannot benefit from their own failure to conduct an immediate and timely inquiry as mandated by the Rules of 2003.

Court Discounts Procedural Lapses By Railways

The bench emphasized that procedural delays attributable to the Railways cannot be used to prejudice the rights of the claimants to receive compensation. Consequently, the court set aside the order of the High Court and restored the original award granted by the Tribunal, directing the Railways to satisfy the payment within thirty days.

Date of Decision: 25 September 2026