Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana v. Union of India
Background
The appellants' son, travelling in the general compartment of a train from Ahmedabad towards Surat on 27 September 2017, fell from the train due to a sudden jerk amid heavy rush and sustained grievous injuries; he died over a month later on 31 October 2017 after hospital treatment. His parents' compensation claim under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act was allowed by the Tribunal, which found this to be an "untoward incident." The Railways appealed, and the Gujarat High Court reversed the award, holding there was no evidence of the fall (no train details disclosed, no ticket recovered) and hence no "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court restored the Tribunal's award, holding the High Court gave undue weight to the mere absence of a recovered ticket. The victim's father had deposed on oath that his son always purchased a ticket and that this particular ticket (along with his watch, comb and cash) was lost. This discharged the claimant's initial burden under the settled principle (from Union of India v. Rina Devi) that mere absence of a ticket does not negate a bona fide passenger's claim, after which the burden shifts to the Railways. The Railways' own witnesses admitted they never checked the victim's pockets for a ticket, and its investigation report, prepared roughly seven months after the incident in violation of the requirement of prompt inquiry under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, was rightly disregarded as unreliable and delayed. Given the victim's month-long hospitalisation (making ticket preservation unlikely) and the doctrine of strict liability under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, the Court held the victim was a bona fide passenger and restored the compensation award, directing payment within thirty days.
Lesson Learnt
In railway accident compensation claims, a victim's family does not have to produce the physical train ticket to prove bona fide travel. A sworn statement explaining its loss is enough to shift the burden onto the Railways, and any delay by the Railways in conducting its own mandatory investigation cannot be used against the claimants.