SUKHABHAI NANJIBHAI MAKWANA AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA

2026 INSC 1056 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.12951 OF 2026

SUKHABHAI NANJIBHAI MAKWANA AND ANOTHER APPELLANTS

VERSUS UNION OF INDIA RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. The appellants are the unfortunate parents of one

Maheshbhai, who while travelling to Surat via Ahmedabad on

27.09.2017 was a victim of an ‘untoward incident’. While travelling

in the general compartment of the train, he fell down 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 in hospital. He,

however, succumbed to his injuries on 31.10.2017. The claim

application preferred by the parents under Section 16 of the

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by ABHINAV KUMAR Date: 2026.09.25 12:31:58 IST Reason:

Page 1 of 13 Civil Appeal No.12951 of 2026

Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 19871 was allowed by the Railway

Claims Tribunal2 on 17.06.2022. It held that Maheshbhai was

victim of an ‘untoward incident’ and had suffered an accidental

fall. The claimants were held entitled to compensation of ₹8 lakhs

along with interest @9% per annum from the date of the incident

till the date of the order. The Union of India being aggrieved,

preferred an appeal under Section 23 of the Act of 1987. A learned

Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court3 by the order dated

15.07.2025 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) of the Railways Act, 19894. The claimants

being aggrieved are in appeal.

2. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate for the

claimants, submitted that the High Court committed an error in

reversing the judgment of the Tribunal by which the claim

application preferred by the claimants had been allowed. The

victim was a bona fide passenger who had a fall from the train in

Page 2 of 13 Civil Appeal No.12951 of 2026

which he was travelling between Sabarmati and Ahmedabad

Railway Stations. Merely on the ground that the travel details of

the victim, such as the name of the train in which the victim was

travelling having not been disclosed, has weighed with the High

Court. He submitted that it having been specifically pleaded by the

claimants that the victim was travelling with a valid ticket which

was lost, the burden to prove that the victim was an unauthorised

passenger was on the Railways. No material was brought on record

by the Railways to disbelieve the claim of the claimants. The Report

submitted under Rule 6 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of

Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 20035 as amended in

2007 was after a period of more than seven months from the

occurrence of the untoward incident. As per Rule 7 of the Rules of

2003, such investigation was required to be immediately

completed and report in that regard was to be expeditiously

submitted. Referring to the decision in Kalandi Charan Sahoo and

Another vs. General Manager, South-East Central Railways,

Bilaspur6 decided on 25.04.2017, he submitted that on account of

Page 3 of 13 Civil Appeal No.12951 of 2026

belated preparation of the investigation report, the same could not

be relied upon. He further referred to the evidence led by the

claimants before the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal

rightly held that the victim was a bona fide passenger. By narrowly

interpreting the provisions of the Act of 1989, the High Court erred

in reversing the award passed by the Tribunal. He also placed

reliance on the decision in Union of India vs. Rina Devi7. He,

therefore, submitted that in view of the material brought on record,

the award passed by the Tribunal ought to be restored and the

impugned order passed by the High Court be set aside.

3. Per contra, Mr. Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar, learned

Additional Solicitor General for the respondent, supported the

impugned order passed by the High Court. He submitted that the

claim of the claimants was rightly disbelieved by the High Court

since no details of the train travel were disclosed in the claim

application. No eyewitness was examined nor any railway ticket

was found on the person of the victim. Referring to the evidence of

the Superintendent, who had stated that there was no movement

of any train at the relevant point of time, it was submitted that

7 2018 INSC 469

Page 4 of 13 Civil Appeal No.12951 of 2026

Railways had rebutted the evidence led by the claimants. It was

rightly held that the injury in question sustained by the victim was

a ‘self-inflicted injury’ and, thus, no compensation was payable to

the claimants under Section 124-A of the Act of 1989. It was,

therefore, submitted that the impugned order of the High Court

did not call for any interference and the appeal was liable to be

dismissed.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

With their assistance, we have perused the relevant documentary

material available on record. Having given due consideration to the

rival submissions, we are of the view that the High Court

committed an error in setting aside the award passed by the

Tribunal. The claimants were rightly held entitled to receive

compensation under Section 124-A of the Act of 1989 and the

award of the Tribunal deserves to be restored.

5. A perusal of the claim application preferred by the claimants

under Section 16 of the Act of 1987 indicates that the victim was

travelling with a valid and proper railway ticket on 27.09.2017.

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

Page 5 of 13 Civil Appeal No.12951 of 2026

from the train between Sabarmati and Ahmedabad Railway

Station. He was thereafter taken to a hospital for medical

treatment, but he succumbed to his injuries on 31.10.2017. The

claim application was accordingly filed on 12.01.2018. Along with

the claim application, a communication dated 13.11.2017 issued

by the Police Station Officer, G.R.P. Ahmedabad, was annexed. As

per this letter, the investigating officer was directed to take charge

of the investigation with regard to the accidental death of the

victim. Written statement was filed by the Railways denying the

claim made by the claimants. The stand taken was that on account

of a self-inflicted injury, the victim had expired. No travel ticket

was recovered from the victim nor were any material details

mentioned in the claim application. The Railways sought to rely

upon an investigation report dated 17.05.2018. As per the

documents placed on record, on 28.02.2018 the Sub-Divisional

Magistrate (East), Ahmedabad, forwarded the necessary papers for

preparation of a report in that regard under Rule 6 of the Rules of

2003. The said papers were received by the Ahmedabad Railway

Police Station on 17.04.2018 and the aforesaid report dated

17.05.2018 was submitted.

Page 6 of 13 Civil Appeal No.12951 of 2026

6. The father of the victim, Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana

examined himself in support of the claim and relied upon the claim

affidavit in that regard. In his cross-examination, he stated that

his son was unmarried and that he was travelling alone in the train

on 27.09.2017 when the untoward incident occurred. He stated on

oath 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 Railways examined an Assistant Sub-Inspector serving

at Sabarmati Railway Station. He stated that he had not received

any information from any engine driver that somebody had dashed

with the engine. He stated that he did not know the train from

which the victim had fallen down and he did not know about the

incident. He had only seen the victim in an injured condition under

a bridge. He stated that he had not searched his pocket. The

Station Superintendent was also examined by the Railways, who

stated that the incident in question was reported to him at 07.30

hrs. He stated that he attended the injured and had sent him to

the hospital through an ambulance. The victim was not in a

Page 7 of 13 Civil Appeal No.12951 of 2026

position to speak and that he had not checked his pocket for any

ticket. Though he had given a memorandum on the same day, no

investigation was made by him subsequently. These were the two

witnesses examined by the Railways.

7. As noted above, the Tribunal accepted the evidence led by the

claimants and held the victim to be a bona fide passenger, who had

lost his life on account of an untoward incident. It was noticed that

no ticket had been produced by the claimants but that by itself

would not establish the fact that the victim was an unauthorised

passenger. There was a possibility of the ticket being lost in such

circumstances. The award passed by the Tribunal granting

compensation was reversed by the High Court principally on the

ground that necessary details of the train in which the victim was

travelling had not been disclosed and that no ticket was found with

the victim. Further, the report of the Division Railway Manager

dated 17.05.2018 was relied upon to set aside the award of the

Tribunal.

8. We may first note certain factual aspects that are available

on record of the present proceedings. In the claim application

dated 12.01.2018 preferred by the claimants, in paragraph 6(d) it

Page 8 of 13 Civil Appeal No.12951 of 2026

was specifically pleaded as under:

“It is true that my deceased son’s railway travelling ticket, a handkerchief, a wrist watch, a pocket comb and a cash of Rs. 800/- to 900/- and etc. is lost.”

In the written statement filed by the Railways, these

averments were denied. The victim’s father examined himself in

support of the claim application. The tenor of his cross-

examination conducted by the Railways makes interesting reading.

The relevant portion thereof is as under:

“I state on oath that my deceased son used to always purchase the ticket before travelling. This is the reason why I stated in my affidavit that he had purchased the ticket which was lost. It is true that my son was travelling by standing near the door of the compartment. My deceased son had no mobile phone.”

The Railways examined two witnesses namely, the Assistant

Sub-Inspector with the Railway Protection Force as well as the

Station Superintendent. In their cross-examination, they admitted

that they had not searched the pocket of the victim for his ticket.

9. In Rina Devi (supra), this Court has held that mere absence

of a ticket with the victim would not negate the claim that the victim

was a bona fide passenger. The initial burden can be discharged by

Page 9 of 13 Civil Appeal No.12951 of 2026

the claimant by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts, after which

the burden would shift on the Railways. In paragraph 17.4 of the

said decision, it has been held as under:

“17.4 We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the Railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly.”

10. Another material factor that is to be borne in mind is that

the untoward incident took place on 27.09.2017, which left the

victim with grievous injuries. He was thereafter hospitalised for a

period of more than a month. He, however, succumbed to his

injuries on 31.10.2017. 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. Taking an

overall view of the matter, the Tribunal proceeded to hold that the

victim was a bona fide passenger and that absence of the ticket

could not be held against the claimants. The claimants had

Page 10 of 13 Civil Appeal No.12951 of 2026

specifically pleaded that the victim’s ticket, handkerchief,

wristwatch, comb and cash of ₹800/- to ₹900/- were lost. The

victim’s father having deposed on oath that his son had purchased

the ticket resulted in the initial burden being discharged by the

claimants and it was upto the Railways to rebut the same. The

witnesses examined by the Railways failed to check the pockets of

the victim. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the

Tribunal was justified in concluding that the victim was a bona

fide passenger. 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 & Others8 is clearly attracted.

8 2008 INSC 577

Page 11 of 13 Civil Appeal No.12951 of 2026

11. Another relevant aspect to be noticed is that the claim

application was preferred by the claimants on 12.01.2018. It is

only after being served with a notice of the said proceedings that

the authorities entered into communication for having the

investigation report under Rule 6 of the Rules of 2003 prepared.

This report was ultimately prepared on 17.05.2018, which is

about seven months from the untoward incident. Delay in

conducting the inquiry could not be attributed to the claimants

and the Railways cannot seek to take advantage of the delay on

their part in preparing the investigation report. In Kalandi

Charan Sahoo (supra), absence of such inquiry being conducted

immediately as required under the Rules of 2003 was held to be a

factor against the Railways. There is no explanation on record

furnished by the Railways as to the reason for delayed preparation

of the investigation report. We are, therefore, inclined to ignore the

said investigation report. The same, therefore, cannot come in the

way of the claimants in receiving compensation.

12. Thus, considering the entire material on record, we are

satisfied that the Tribunal had rightly granted compensation to

the claimants under Section 124-A of the Act of 1989. The High

Page 12 of 13 Civil Appeal No.12951 of 2026

Court was not justified in reversing the said award on the ground

that the claimants could not produce the ticket on which the

claimant was travelling. For all the aforesaid reasons, the order

dated 15.07.2025 passed by the High Court in R/First Appeal

No.4716 of 2022 is set aside. The award dated 17.06.2022 passed

in O.A. No.11 of 2018 by the Tribunal is restored. The award be

now satisfied by the Railways within a period of thirty days. The

Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties

to bear their own costs. Pending Interlocutory Applications are

also disposed of.

…...………………………..J. [ UJJAL BHUYAN ]

.…..………………………..J. [ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 25, 2026.

Page 13 of 13 Civil Appeal No.12951 of 2026