Compensation for “untoward incidents” under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 is a strict-liability, welfare-oriented remedy. Yet claims are routinely resisted on a single ground: no ticket was found on the victim. A Supreme Court judgment of 25 September 2026 restates the correct evidentiary approach — an initial burden on the claimant that sworn testimony can discharge, shifting the onus to the Railways to rebut — and restores an award a High Court had overturned.
Three rounds of litigation
The claim traversed the full ladder. The Railway Claims Tribunal, in June 2022, found the victim a bona fide passenger who suffered an accidental fall — an untoward incident — and awarded Rs. 8,00,000 with 9% annual interest. The Gujarat High Court, in July 2025, reversed: insufficient proof of the fall and of passenger status. The Supreme Court, per Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar, has now restored the Tribunal’s award in the parents’ appeal.
The evidentiary framework the Court applied
The statutory scheme at a glance
| Provision | Content |
|---|---|
| Section 123(c)(2), Railways Act 1989 | “Untoward incident” includes accidental falling of a passenger from a train |
| Section 124-A | Compensation payable irrespective of wrongful act, neglect or default of the railway administration |
| Section 16, Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 | Tribunal’s jurisdiction over such claims |
| 2003 Investigation Rules (Rules 6, 7) | Prompt inquiry into untoward incidents — delay here undermined the Railways’ case |
The judgment continues a consistent Supreme Court line treating Chapter XIII of the Railways Act as beneficial legislation to be construed liberally in favour of victims — with the missing-ticket objection repeatedly rejected as a complete defence.
What claimants and their counsel should note
Testimony matters
A clear, consistent affidavit and deposition on the journey and ticket purchase can carry the initial burden — corroborating details such as the station, time and travel purpose strengthen it.
Attack the rebuttal
Cross-examine on whether belongings were searched, when the incident was investigated, and how the departmental report was prepared. Late, formulaic reports rarely survive scrutiny.
Persist through appeals
This family lost in the High Court eight years after the death and still recovered. Statutory compensation claims reward endurance; interest runs to compensate the delay.
The restored award carries 9% interest from the Tribunal’s framework — a reminder that the real value of persistence includes the accrued interest, not just the principal sum.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Railway claims turn on their evidentiary record and timelines; parties should obtain advice on their own matter.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happened in this case?
A passenger fell from a crowded general compartment between Sabarmati and Ahmedabad on 27 September 2017, suffered grievous injuries and died about a month later. His parents claimed compensation, asserting he held a valid ticket lost in the incident. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 8 lakh with 9% interest in 2022; the Gujarat High Court reversed in 2025; the Supreme Court has now restored the award.
Who must prove the victim was a bona fide passenger?
The claimant bears an initial burden, which can be discharged by credible sworn testimony that a ticket was purchased. The onus then shifts to the Railways to rebut. Here, railway witnesses had never searched the victim’s pockets, and the belated investigation report was found unreliable — so the rebuttal failed.
What counts as an “untoward incident”?
Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act includes the accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. Section 124-A makes compensation payable irrespective of railway negligence, subject to narrow exceptions such as suicide or the passenger’s own criminal act.
Why did the Supreme Court call the liability “strict”?
Because Section 124-A dispenses with proof of wrongful act, neglect or default. Once an untoward incident involving a bona fide passenger is shown, compensation under the statutory scale is mandatory — a scheme the Court applied in favour of the bereaved parents.