Absence Of Recovery Of Bonafide Passenger’s Ticket Can't Result In Defeating Railway Accident Compensation Claim: Supreme Court
The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by the parents of one Maheshbhai, who, while travelling to Surat via Ahmedabad, was a victim of an untoward incident.
While directing the Railways to satisfy an award within thirty days, the Supreme Court has held that the victim was a bona fide passenger and the absence of recovery of his ticket cannot result in defeating the claim for compensation.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the parents of one Maheshbhai, who, while travelling to Surat via Ahmedabad, was a victim of an untoward incident.
The Division Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held, “The High Court gave undue importance to the absence of the railway ticket without taking into consideration the statement made on oath by the victim’s father and the fact that the victim had been hospitalised for a period of more than one month. 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. 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.”
Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi represented the Appellant while Additional Solicitor General Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
While travelling in the general compartment of a train, Maheshbhai fell on account of a sudden jerk and jolt when the said train was between Sabarmati and Ahmedabad Railway Stations. He sustained multiple grievous injuries and was admitted to hospital. He, however, succumbed to his injuries. The claim application preferred by the parents under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 was allowed by the Tribunal. It was held that Maheshbhai was a victim of an ‘untoward incident’ and had suffered an accidental fall. The claimants were held entitled to compensation of ₹8 lakhs along with interest. The Union of India preferred an appeal under Section 23.
A Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court allowed the said appeal by holding that there was no evidence as to the fall of the victim from the train and, therefore, the incident could not be called an ‘untoward incident’ as defined under Section 123(c)(2). The claimants, being aggrieved, approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the victim was travelling with a valid and proper railway ticket. While he was travelling to Surat in the general compartment of the train, on account of heavy rush, he lost his balance and fell down from the train between Sabarmati and Ahmedabad Railway Station.
The Bench took note of the statement of the father that his son had purchased a ticket which was, however, lost. He accepted the suggestion made to him by the Railways that his son, while travelling, was standing near the door of the compartment. The Bench noticed that the Railways examined two witnesses namely, the Assistant Sub-Inspector with the Railway Protection Force as well as the Station Superintendent, who admitted in their cross-examination that they had not searched the pocket of the victim for his ticket.
The Bench stated, “In normal course, when the victim was undergoing medical treatment, it is quite unlikely that the railway ticket would have been preserved by the claimants. In any event, the Railways failed to discharge the burden that had shifted on them in view of the claimant’s statement on oath.”
The Bench also ignored the investigation report after noting that no explanation on record was furnished by the Railways as to the reason for delayed preparation of the investigation report. Thus, holding that the Tribunal had rightly granted compensation to the claimants under Section 124-A, the Bench set aside the order of the High Court.
Allowing the civil appeal, the Bench ordered, “The award dated 17.06.2022 passed by the Tribunal is restored. The award be now satisfied by the Railways within a period of thirty days.
Cause Title: Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana & Anr. v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1056)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi, Advocates Sagrika Arya, Satadru Majumder, Ruchil Raj,Mohd Umar Iqbal Khan, Kabir Singh, AOR Prashant Rawat
Respondent: Additional Solicitor General Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar, Advocates Devraj Bhattacharjee, Amit Sharma-v, Suyash Pandey, Dheeraj Jani, AOR Amrish Kumar, Advocate Arun Kumar Yadav