Why a Lost Ticket Doesn’t End a Railway Claim: Supreme Court on the Burden of Proof

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the absence of a railway ticket, by itself, does not defeat a compensation claim when the evidence supports bona fide passenger status.

What Happened

On 25 September 2026, the Supreme Court held that the mere absence of a railway ticket with an accident victim cannot, by itself, defeat a claim for compensation. A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the Gujarat High Court’s decision and restored the Railway Claims Tribunal’s award of ₹8 lakh with 9% annual interest. The Railways were directed to satisfy the award within thirty days.

The case concerned a deceased passenger who, in September 2017, was travelling in a general compartment when he fell from the train after a sudden jerk and heavy rush. He suffered grievous injuries, remained hospitalised for more than a month, and died in October 2017. His parents subsequently pursued a compensation claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal.

The central evidentiary question was straightforward but important: what happens when the passenger’s ticket is not recovered?

The Court applied the existing rule in Union of India v. Rina Devi. The claimant carries the initial burden of establishing the relevant facts. That burden can be discharged through an affidavit setting out those facts. Once that initial burden is discharged, the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim. The absence of a ticket does not automatically negate bona fide passenger status.

Here, the deceased passenger’s father gave evidence on oath that his son had purchased a ticket which was later lost. The Railways examined two witnesses, but neither had searched the victim’s pockets for a ticket. The Supreme Court therefore held that the Railways had failed to discharge the burden that had shifted to them.

The Court also considered the circumstances surrounding the loss of the ticket. Because the victim had remained in hospital for more than a month after sustaining grievous injuries, the Court considered it “quite unlikely” that the ticket would have been preserved by the claimants. On the overall evidence, it concluded that the victim was a bona fide passenger on a preponderance of probabilities.

Background & Context

The claim arose from an incident in September 2017. The deceased passenger was travelling in a general compartment towards Surat when he fell from the train after a sudden jerk and heavy rush. He sustained grievous injuries and died in October 2017 after more than a month of hospitalisation.

His parents filed a claim under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The Railway Claims Tribunal found that the deceased had been the victim of an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. It awarded ₹8 lakh with 9% annual interest.

The Union of India challenged that award before the Gujarat High Court under Section 23 of the 1987 Act. The High Court reversed the Tribunal’s decision, finding insufficient evidence regarding the fall from the train and giving weight to the fact that no railway ticket had been recovered.

The parents then approached the Supreme Court.

Rather than treating the missing ticket as decisive, the Supreme Court returned to the evidentiary framework it had already laid down in Rina Devi. That decision makes clear that the absence of a ticket does not, on its own, negate bona fide passenger status. The claimant must first discharge the initial burden, after which the Railways must respond with evidence and surrounding circumstances capable of rebutting the claim. The determination remains fact-specific.

The Supreme Court also considered the Railways’ investigation into the incident. Under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, the investigation was expected to be completed immediately and the report submitted expeditiously. In this case, the report was prepared about seven months after the incident, and the Court noted that there was no explanation on record for the delay.

The Court relied on Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. General Manager, South-East Central Railways, Bilaspur, where the absence of an inquiry being conducted immediately as required under the Rules had been treated as a factor against the Railways. The Court therefore declined to rely on the delayed investigation report in this case.

Key Details

• Court/Forum: Supreme Court of India.
• Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar.
• Date: 25 September 2026; the decision was reported on 26 September 2026.
• Case: Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana & Anr. v. Union of India.
• Case No./Citation: Civil Appeal No. 12951 of 2026; 2026 INSC 1056; 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 994.
• Statutory provisions: Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989; Sections 16 and 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987; and the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003.
• Parties: The parents of the deceased passenger were the appellants and the Union of India was the respondent.
• Award: ₹8 lakh with 9% annual interest, as awarded by the Tribunal.
• Current status: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Gujarat High Court’s order and restored the Tribunal’s award. The Railways were directed to satisfy the award within thirty days.

Why It Matters

The practical importance of the judgment lies in how it illustrates the operation of the burden of proof.

A missing ticket does not mean that a claimant automatically succeeds. Nor does a claimant’s statement automatically establish every element of a compensation claim in every case. The Supreme Court’s reasoning was tied to the evidence before it.

The first step was the claimant’s evidence. The deceased passenger’s father stated on oath that his son had purchased a ticket and that it had been lost. Applying Rina Devi, the Court treated this as sufficient to discharge the initial burden in the circumstances of the case. The evidentiary burden then shifted to the Railways.

The second step was the Railways’ response. The two witnesses examined by the Railways had not searched the victim’s pockets for a ticket. The Court therefore found that the Railways had not rebutted the claimant’s evidence sufficiently to displace the inference that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

The third step was the surrounding circumstances. The victim had been hospitalised for more than a month after the incident. Against that background, the Court considered it “quite unlikely” that the ticket would have been preserved. This was not treated as an independent rule that a hospitalised victim will necessarily have lost a ticket. It was one circumstance forming part of the overall evidentiary assessment.

The fourth step concerned the Railways’ own investigation. The investigation report was prepared roughly seven months after the incident, after the claim proceedings had been initiated, and the Railways had not provided an explanation for the delay. Following Kalandi Charan Sahoo, the Supreme Court treated that delay as a factor against the Railways and declined to rely on the report.

The resulting analysis was therefore cumulative. The father’s sworn evidence, the absence of a ticket, the failure of the Railways’ witnesses to search the victim’s pockets, the prolonged hospitalisation and the delayed investigation were considered together. On that evidentiary record, the Court concluded that the victim was a bona fide passenger on a preponderance of probabilities.

For law students and practitioners, the case offers a useful worked example of a familiar evidentiary principle: the burden of proof can move during adjudication. A claimant may begin with the initial burden, but once that burden is discharged, the opposing party may have to produce evidence capable of rebutting the claim.

The decision also demonstrates why the Court’s reference to Rina Devi matters. The Supreme Court did not announce a new rule that every missing-ticket claim must result in compensation. Instead, it reiterated an existing legal position and applied it to the particular evidence before it. The outcome remained dependent on the facts established in the case.

Closing

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana v. Union of India restores the Railway Claims Tribunal’s award while clarifying how the absence of a ticket should be assessed in an untoward-incident claim.

The key point is not that a missing ticket is irrelevant. It is that its absence cannot, standing alone, decide bona fide passenger status. Once the claimant places relevant facts on oath and discharges the initial burden, the Railways must meet the shifted burden with evidence. In this case, the Court found that they had not done so.

The decision therefore provides a clear illustration of the burden-shifting approach under Rina Devi, while leaving the ultimate determination to the evidence and circumstances of each individual claim.