New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that mere absence of a railway ticket does not disqualify a claim for compensation arising from an untoward incident, and that the burden of proving a passenger was unauthorised shif…

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that mere absence of a railway ticket does not disqualify a claim for compensation arising from an untoward incident, and that the burden of proving a passenger was unauthorised shifts to the Railways once the claimant files an affidavit asserting bona fide travel with a valid ticket which was subsequently lost. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar restored a Railway Claims Tribunal award of Rs 8 lakh with 9 per cent interest to the parents of Maheshbhai, who died after falling from a train.  The Gujarat High Court had earlier set aside the award, citing lack of evidence of a fall and the absence of a ticket. On a challenge, the top court emphasised that under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, an investigation report must be prepared immediately and submitted expeditiously. A report prepared after a significant, unexplained delay cannot be relied upon by the Railways to defeat a compensation claim. Railways spent 80% of gross budgetary support in first three quarters of current fiscalMaheshbhai was travelling in the general compartment of a train bound for Surat via Ahmedabad on September 27, 2017. He fell due to a sudden jerk between Sabarmati and Ahmedabad stations, sustained grievous injuries, and died in hospital on October 31, 2017.  His parents, Sukhabai Nanjibhai Makwana and another, filed a claim under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The Tribunal allowed the claim, holding that the death resulted from an untoward incident. The Union of India appealed. A single judge of the Gujarat High Court allowed the appeal on July 15, 2025, concluding there was no evidence of a fall from the train and that the injury appeared self-inflicted. Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the parents argued that the victim had been travelling with a valid ticket that was lost, and that the Railways had failed to produce material to disbelieve the claim.  The investigation report under the 2003 Rules was submitted more than seven months after the incident, in breach of the requirement for prompt inquiry. The Union of India contended that no train details were disclosed in the claim, no eyewitness was examined, and no ticket was recovered. Railway witnesses had stated there was no train movement at the relevant time. In its judgment on September 25, 2026, the apex court, however, found the High Court had erred in the case. Relying on its earlier decision in Union of India v Rina Devi (2018), the bench reiterated that the mere absence of a ticket does not negate the claim of bona fide travel. The claimant discharges the initial burden by filing an affidavit of relevant facts; the onus then shifts to the Railways. The court noted that railway witnesses admitted they had not checked the victim’s pockets for a ticket. Given that the injured man remained hospitalised for over a month, it was unlikely the ticket would have been preserved. On the preponderance of probabilities, the Tribunal was justified in holding Maheshbhai a bona fide passenger. The investigation report, prepared on May 17, 2018—nearly seven months after the incident—was disregarded.  The court also held the delay could not be attributed to the claimants, and the Railways offered no explanation for it. It set aside the High Court order, restored the Tribunal’s award and directed that the money should be disbursed within 30 days.

Source: Deccan Herald