Mere Absence Of Ticket Doesn't Defeat Bona Fide Passenger Claim: Supreme Court Awards Compensation To Widow Of Man Who Fell From Running Train
The Court also suggested “class connotation” be attached to the coach and not to the passenger, calling "second class passenger" terminology offensive to constitutional spirit.
Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that the mere absence of a train ticket on the person of a deceased passenger does not negate his status as a bona fide passenger, setting aside the concurrent findings of the Railway Claims Tribunal and the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had denied compensation to the widow of a man who fell from a running train. The Court also noted that overcrowding "is a regular occurrence and that is more often than not the reason for such unfortunate incidents", pointing to a string of recent tragedies.
The Court further flagged, as a separate observation, that the term "second class passenger" used across Railway manuals ought to be reconsidered, suggesting that class connotations be attached to the coach rather than the passenger, in view of India's history of social stratification and the offence such labelling causes to the spirit of the Constitution.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh quoting Union of India v. Rina Devi observed, "...mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger…”.
“One aspect that caught our attention while perusing the manual and other related documents, was the use of the term ‘second class passenger’. While it is ostensibly linked to the expenditure incurred by the passenger to travel, we may suggest that the class connotation be attached to the coach and not to the passenger, in recognition of the history of class divisions in our country and the same being offensive to the spirit of the Constitution of India”, the Bench further noted.
Shweta Priyadarshini, AOR appeared for the petitioner and Brijender Chahar, A.S.G. appeared for the respondent.
The deceased was travelling from Raipur to Ahmedabad when he fell from Train No. 12834 Ahmedabad-Howrah Mail and died instantaneously. His luggage, said to contain his ticket, was never recovered.
The Railway Claims Tribunal and, in appeal, the Madhya Pradesh High Court both denied compensation to his widow, holding that his status as a bona fide passenger could not be established in the absence of the ticket.
The Supreme Court, examining the statutory scheme under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 and precedent on the liberal construction of beneficial legislation, held that the courts below had erred, and that the absence of a recovered ticket could not by itself defeat an otherwise credible claim supported by affidavit evidence.
Noting Volume I of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual, the Court observed that had the Railways followed its own Commercial Manual on ticket-checking, there would have been contemporaneous records establishing whether a passenger who fell to his death from a running train held a valid ticket, sparing his widow the ordeal of litigating the question all the way to the apex court.
“All of these aspects from the Manual, become important. It is not the pleaded case of the respondent that he was standing on the foot-board (entry gate). Had the provisions of this Manual been followed, there would be records of the deceased’s ticket having been checked even before he entered the train, putting to rest the main question of whether the deceased was a ticketless traveller and thereby disentitling him to compensation, saving his family members the effort of having to carry the matter all the way up to this Court”.
However, the Bench even noted that, “…It would be entirely unfair to cast sole responsibility upon the Railways. The passengers themselves have an equal responsibility. Incidents such as these are not hidden from the general public and despite the painful ends that most of these people meet, there has not been a reform in habit and people still insist on being daredevils in catching trains and making their way from one place to another. True it is that most of these choices are informed by one or the other practical consideration, but the risk stares one right in the face. Sometimes then, practical considerations must give way to the preservation of life. It is unfortunate that in the economic rat race, such obvious aspects are readily kept on the backburner”.
The Bench turned to the question of what obligations the Railways themselves bear toward passengers. Referring extensively to provisions of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual and the Operating Manual for Indian Railways, governing ticket checking at platforms, before boarding, and en route, as well as the duties of Travelling Ticket Examiners and station staff, the Court noted that these provisions exist precisely to prevent ticketless travel and to create a verifiable record of every passenger's ticket status.
The Bench linked this lapse to the broader, well-documented problem of overcrowding on Indian trains, citing a series of recent news reports of deaths and injuries from passengers falling off overcrowded trains across Mumbai, Chennai, Surat, and other cities.
These observations formed part of the Court's broader reasoning in allowing the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the Tribunal, and directing the Union of India to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000 to the appellant within four weeks, failing which the amount would carry interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing the claim.
Cause Title: Lata v. Union of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 715)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Shweta Priyadarshini, AOR, Nishi Singh, rohit Kumar Singh, Bhagwati, Shrika gautam, Advocates.
Respondents: Brijender Chahar, A.S.G., Seema Bengani, Prashant Singh-ii, Sweksha, Radhika Mishra, Amrish Kumar, AOR, Advocates.