Summary of this article
SC held that Section 124A of the Railways Act creates a "no-fault liability" regime intended to provide speedy relief to victims and their families.
The Court said claimants can establish that the victim was a bona fide passenger through affidavits and surrounding circumstances, reaffirming the welfare intent of the Railways Act.
The Bench said that technical lapses should not defeat the welfare objective of the law and stressed that courts and tribunals must adopt a humanitarian approach while deciding compensation claims.
In a significant judgment that reinforces the welfare intent of the Railways Act, the Supreme Court has held that the absence of a train ticket, by itself, cannot be used to reject a compensation claim. The ruling reiterates that welfare legislation must be interpreted in a manner that advances justice rather than being defeated by technicalities.
The case arose from the death of Chandrakant Thakkar, who allegedly fell from the Ahmedabad–Howrah Mail while travelling from Raipur to Ahmedabad in November 2015. His widow claimed compensation saying that her husband bought a ticket which was valid but it got lost during the incident when his bag carrying the ticket also fell off. Although Railway Claims Tribunal accepted that her husband died due to "untoward incident", it dismissed the claim for compensation on ground that the ticket was not produced. This judgment was appealed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court and upheld. The woman then appealed in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court took a different view. Setting aside the decisions of both the Tribunal and the High Court, a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that Section 124A of the Railways Act creates a "no-fault liability" regime intended to provide speedy relief to victims and their families.
“The Court emphasised that the initial burden on claimants can be discharged through a credible affidavit and surrounding circumstances. Once that is done, the burden shifts to the Railways to establish that the passenger was not a bona fide traveller. The non-recovery of a ticket alone cannot automatically defeat a genuine compensation claim,” says Sunayana Basu Mallik, Partner, King Stubb & Kasiva, Advocates and Attorneys.
The Court directed the Railways to pay Rs 8 lakh in statutory compensation to the deceased's widow within four weeks, along with interest in case of delay. Moving beyond the incident, the Court said the Railways has a larger responsibility of passenger safety, should address overcrowding on its trains, effectively monitor and enforce ticketing rules and see to it that there are operational safeguards to minimise accidents. The Bench observed that while passengers must exercise due care, the Railways, as a welfare institution, bear a significant responsibility to protect those travelling on its network.
“The ruling is significant because it reaffirms that compensation under the Railways Act is a social welfare measure designed to provide relief to victims rather than punish procedural lapses. By placing substance over technicalities, the Supreme Court has strengthened access to justice for families who may otherwise struggle to prove possession of a ticket after a fatal or serious railway accident.” says Mallik.
The judgment is expected to guide future Railway Claims Tribunal proceedings by ensuring that genuine claims are assessed on the basis of overall evidence and probabilities, rather than the sole absence of a recovered ticket.
Court Flags Larger Passenger Safety Concerns
Beyond the individual case, the judgment also drew attention to the recurring problem of overcrowded trains and accidental falls. Referring to railway manuals and recent incidents across the country, the Court observed that while the Railways have detailed safety protocols - including checking tickets, preventing overcrowding and ensuring passengers do not travel on footboards - their implementation often falls short.
The Bench said that technical lapses should not defeat the welfare objective of the law and stressed that courts and tribunals must adopt a humanitarian approach while deciding compensation claims. At the same time, it reminded passengers that they too share responsibility for avoiding unsafe travel practices.
In an interesting observation, the Court also suggested that the expression "second-class passenger" should be replaced with "second-class coach", saying the classification should describe the coach rather than the person travelling in it, in keeping with the constitutional spirit of equality.
