Case Name:  LATA V UNION OF INDIA
Petition No.: Special Leave Petition(Civil) No. 30726 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 715
Date of Judgement: 17.07.2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Relevant Statutes & Provisions: Section 123, Section 124A of Railway Act 1989, Article 38 of Indian Constitution

INTRODUCTION
This case addresses a critical conflict between rigid evidentiary burdens and the beneficial, social welfare framework governing statutory railway compensation. The Court adjudicated on whether the absence or non-recovery of a physical train ticket automatically disentitles a victim’s dependant from claiming compensation for death resulting from an untoward incident under Section 124A of Railways Act,1989. The Court observed that Railways have evolved into a modernized network and as the instrumentality of Government of India, its actions should be guided by the concept of  welfare State enshrined in Article 38 of the Constitution.

FACTS
On November 28, 2015, Chandrakant Thakkar was travelling for business purposes. During journey, he fell from the running train between the sections and died instantaneously due to his injuries. His wife (appellant) filed a claim petition under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking ₹4,00,000 compensation with 18% interest, asserting that her husband was a bona fide passenger whose ticket was lost along with his misplaced luggage.The Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh both dismissed her claim, holding that she failed to establish her husband was a bona fide passenger due to the non-recovery of the ticket as well as belongings and an inconsistency regarding the date of travel in her cross-examination. She subsequently appealed these concurrent dismissals before the Supreme Court of India. 

ISSUE
Whether the absence of a physical train ticket disentitles the deceased from being treated as a ‘bonafide passenger’ under the Railways Act, 1989, thereby shifting or discharging the burden of proof required for compensation claims?

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
The appellant argued that the deceased was a bona fide passenger who had purchased a valid ticket that was lost along with his untraceable luggage during the accident. She asserted that discharging the initial burden of proof via a sworn affidavit is sufficient to claim compensation Section 124A Railways Act, 1989. The respondent resisted the claim on the ground that the claimant failed to prove the deceased was a bona fide passenger since no ticket or personal belongings were recovered from the site. They relied on inconsistency between the travel date mentioned in the claim petition and date mentioned during the claimant’s cross examination to deny liability. 

JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS
The Court analyzed Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, specifically evaluating whether the absence or non-recovery of a physical ticket disentitles a claimant from compensation. Referring to Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572 and Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India (2024) 9 SCC 656 , the Bench clarified that the initial burden of proof rests on the claimant, which can be validly discharged by filing an affidavit stating the relevant facts including the purchase and loss of the ticket during the incident. Once such an affidavit is filed, the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove the claim. The Court reaffirmed that merely because the ticket of a train journey was not found on the person of the deceased, will not change his status as a bona fide passenger. 

The Court held that the mere non-recovery of a ticket from the deceased’s body or belongings does not alter their status as a bona fide passenger. The governing standard of proof in such tribunal proceedings is the preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Since the appellant filed an affidavit detailing the travel and loss of the ticket, and the Railways failed to disprove it, the lower forums erred in rejecting the claim on hyper-technical grounds. 

The bench examined the statutory scheme under Section 124A, which governs compensation for untoward incidents like accidental falls from running trains. The Court emphasized that Section 124A imposes ‘no fault liability’ on the Railway Administration, meaning compensation is payable regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railways. Drawing from various constitutional and statutory principles, the Bench noted that the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of social legislation in the welfare state principles of Article 38 of the Indian Constitution. 

Thus, the Court held that beneficial and social welfare statutes must receive a liberal, purposive, and broad construction rather than a narrow one. Minor discrepancies such as inconsistency between the date stated in the cross-examination and the claim petition cannot defeat the primary objective of providing swift, accessible relief to victim’s families when the factum of death and the occurrence of an untoward incident are undisputed and do not fall under any of the statutory exceptions. The Supreme Court, therefore, allowed the appeal, setting aside the concurrent decisions of the RCT and High Court of Madhya Pradesh to award the appellant ₹8,00,000 in statutory compensation.

CONCLUSION
The Court evaluated the applicable quantum of compensation under Schedule I to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, as updated by subsequent amendments and notifications. The judgment establishes that a sworn affidavit by the claimant is sufficient to discharge the initial burden of proving bona fide passenger status, shifting the onus onto the Railways. Ultimately, the ruling serves as a strong reminder that statutory bodies and courts must adopt a liberal, purposive, and humanitarian approach when interpreting beneficial legislation, ensuring that constitutional welfare mandates prevail over hyper-technical evidentiary standards. 

Source