No Ticket Found on Deceased? Supreme Court Says Railways Can't Deny Compensation

The Supreme Court has held that the Railways must pay compensation for the death of a passenger in an untoward incident even if no ticket is found on the deceased, provided the claimant discharges the initial burden of proof through an affidavit.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh said the compensation mechanism under Section 124A of the Railways Act is a beneficial provision meant to provide expeditious relief to victims of untoward incidents without requiring claimants to prove negligence.

Court said a technical or restrictive interpretation that defeats the welfare objective of the law must be avoided. It also clarified that the applicable standard of proof is the "preponderance of probabilities" and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Bona fide passenger in absence of train ticket

Court held that the mere absence of a ticket on the deceased passenger does not automatically mean he was not a bona fide passenger.

Also Read| SC directs Railways to pay compensation for death of passenger due to fall

"The mere absence of a ticket on a deceased passenger does not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. The initial burden lies on the claimant to establish this through an affidavit, upon which the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove it based on the facts and attending circumstances," the Bench said.

Relying on its decision in Union of India vs Rina Devi (2019), Court held that once the claimant files an affidavit establishing the foundational facts, the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim. Applying that principle to the present case, Court found that the appellant's affidavit was sufficient to discharge the initial burden.

The Bench reiterated that beneficial legislation must be interpreted in a purposive and liberal manner so that its social welfare objective is achieved rather than defeated by a literal or restrictive reading.

Why did the Supreme Court interfere?

The appeal was filed by Lata, whose claim for compensation as the wife of deceased Chandrakant Thakkar had been rejected by both the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Thakkar was travelling from Raipur to Ahmedabad on Train No. 12834 Ahmedabad-Howrah Mail on November 28, 2015, when he fell from the running train in the Khandbada-Khatgaon section and died due to the injuries.

Although the Railway Claims Tribunal accepted that the incident was an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, it denied compensation on the ground that it had not been established that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

Also Read| Supreme Court Urges Railways To Adopt Tech Like Auto-Videography To Avoid Excess Weight Disputes

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, by its judgment dated January 3, 2024, affirmed the Tribunal's decision, observing that the claim could not succeed as none of the deceased's belongings, including the ticket, had been recovered. It also noted an inconsistency regarding the date of travel between the appellant's statement and the claim petition.

The Supreme Court, however, held that both the tribunal and the high court had adopted an unduly technical approach.

Railways Act is a welfare law

Court observed that Section 124A creates a "no-fault liability" regime and therefore reflects the beneficial intent of Parliament.

"The Railways although a facet of colonial inheritance, today have been expanded, developed and modernised, serving as the backbone of the nation in terms of movement of material, passengers and also essential goods. Being an arm of the Government of India, one of the overarching principles which govern its actions is that of the welfare State provided for in Article 38 of the Constitution of India," the Bench said.

It emphasised that procedural lapses and technical objections should not defeat the welfare purpose of the statute, adding that it does not befit the Railways, as an instrumentality of the State, to adopt such a restrictive approach.

The Bench reiterated that claims under the Railways Act are to be decided on the standard of "preponderance of probabilities" rather than the criminal law standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Referring to its decision in Rajni vs Union of India (2025), Court said the foundational facts to be established are: (i) travel on the basis of a valid ticket; and (ii) an accident leading to death. Courts and tribunals should adopt an approach that furthers the humanitarian objective of ensuring accessible compensation.

"The instances where such incidents occur may be statistically insignificant or few and far between, but for each individual family that suffers this unspeakable tragedy, the loss and suffering is life-altering and in some cases even unsurmountable. The court must treat it as such," the Bench observed.

Court flags overcrowding, suggests reforms

Court also referred to recent incidents of overcrowding and railway mishaps. It noted that although the Railways has issued guidelines to prevent unauthorised travel and overcrowding, such incidents continue to occur and often lead to fatal accidents.

The Bench observed that had the provisions of the Railways Manual been properly followed, there would have been records showing whether the deceased's ticket had been checked before boarding, thereby avoiding prolonged litigation over whether he was a ticketless traveller.

Also Read| Railways Can’t Deny Compensation for Passenger Death on Mere Technical Grounds: Supreme Court

It also suggested that employing more young people in the Railways could both create stable employment and help preserve human lives.

Further, Court expressed its disapproval of the term "second class passenger" used in the Railways Manual, suggesting that the class description should relate only to the coach and not the passenger, considering India's history of class divisions and the constitutional ethos.

Compensation awarded

In the present case, the Supreme Court noted that the appellant had consistently stated that the deceased's ticket was kept in his bag, which could not be recovered by the police.

"There is no other way to prove this. There is no denial of the deceased travelling in the train and occurrence of the incident. The factum of death and it not falling into the exceptions provided for, is quite clear. It is no one's case that the exceptions apply. Then, the claim only depends on the ticket. The said bag in which the ticket was allegedly kept, could not be recovered... we are of the view that the courts below have erred in not awarding compensation to the appellant," the Bench said.

Also Read| Supreme Court Urges Railways To Tackle Overcrowding, Says 'Second Class Passenger' Term Offends Constitutional Spirit

Court reiterated that merely because the train ticket was not found on the deceased's person would not alter his status as a bona fide passenger. Since the claimant had filed the required affidavit, the initial burden stood discharged.

Referring to Schedule I of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, as amended, Court held that compensation payable for the death of a passenger is Rs 8 lakh.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court directed the Railways to pay Rs 8 lakh as compensation along with 8% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition, within four weeks.

Case Title: Lata Vs Union of India & Anr

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh 

Date of Judgment: July 17, 2026