LATA
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )
Civil Appeal No……of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition(Civil) No .30726 of 2025)
Decided on : 17-07-2026
Compensation under Section 124A Railways Act is "no-fault liability," attracted irrespective of negligence, except for statutorily carved-out exceptions like suicide.
A. Railways Act, 1989 — Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A — Compensation on account of untoward incidents — 'No-fault' liability — Accidental falling of a passenger from a running train constitutes an "untoward incident" — Liability under S. 124A arises irrespective of wrongful act, neglect or default of the Railway Administration, subject only to statutory exceptions such as suicide, self-inflicted injury or the passenger's own criminal act — Provision held to be beneficial and welfare-oriented in nature. [Paras 5-7]
B. Railways Act, 1989 — Burden of proof — Bona fide passenger status — Absence of ticket not conclusive — Mere absence of ticket on the person of the deceased does not negate bona fide passenger status — Initial burden on claimant dischargeable through affidavit; burden then shifts to Railways — Standard applicable: preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt — Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, followed. [Para 9]
C. Railways Act, 1989 — Duty of Railway Administration — Overcrowding and safety compliance — Extensive provisions of the Railway Commercial and Operating Manuals cast specific duties on railway staff regarding ticket checking, prevention of overcrowding, and passenger safety — Recurring incidents of death/injury due to overcrowding across the country noted — Non-enforcement of these safeguards, rather than absence of guidelines, found to be the deficiency. [Paras 10-15]
D. Railways Act, 1989 — Claim for compensation — Application to facts — Ticket allegedly misplaced with luggage — Claimant's affidavit stating deceased possessed a valid ticket, subsequently misplaced with his bag which could not be recovered by police, held sufficient to discharge initial burden — No dispute regarding travel, occurrence of incident, or applicability of statutory exceptions — Denial of compensation by Tribunal and High Court for want of ticket recovery held erroneous. [Paras 19-20]
E. Railways Act, 1989 — Compensation — Quantum — Compensation for death of passenger determined with reference to Schedule I of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, as amended, fixed at Rs. 8,00,000/-, payable within four weeks, failing which to carry interest at 8% from the date of filing of the claim petition. [Paras 20-21]
F. Railways — Judicial observations — Passenger responsibility and terminology — Court observed that responsibility for such incidents cannot rest solely on the Railways; passengers must also exercise caution — Suggestion made that the term "class" in railway parlance be attached to the coach rather than the passenger, to avoid connotations of class distinction inconsistent with constitutional values. [Paras 16, 18]
G. Beneficial Legislation — Rule of construction — Purposive and liberal interpretation — Beneficial and welfare statutes must receive purposive, liberal construction favouring beneficiaries where two views are possible, rather than a narrow, literal or technical approach — Legislative intent must be given practical effect — Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa v. Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108, and Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, relied on. [Paras 7.1-7.3, 8]
