LexStreak
Read free →
Supreme Court of India· 25 September 2026

Can the Railways rely on an investigation report under Rule 6 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 that was prepared belatedly with no explanation for the delay?

SUKHABHAI NANJIBHAI MAKWANA AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA
2026 INSC 1056 · CIVIL APPEAL NO.12951 OF 2026
Coram: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan · Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.124-A Railways Act, 1989📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

The Railways cannot take advantage of their own delay in preparing the investigation report under Rule 6 of the Rules of 2003.

No. Following Kalandi Charan Sahoo, the absence of an inquiry conducted immediately, as the Rules of 2003 require, is a factor against the Railways. Delay in conducting the inquiry cannot be attributed to the claimants, and the Railways cannot take advantage of the delay on their part. Here the report was prepared about seven months after the untoward incident, only after the claim application had been served, and no explanation for the delay was on record, so the Court ignored it.

Headnote

Railways Act, 1989 — s.124-A — s.123(c)(2) — Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 — s.16 — Untoward incident — Bona fide passenger — Absence of ticket — Railways Act, 1989 — s.124-A — Bona fide passenger — Absence of ticket — Burden shifts — Held: Mere absence of a ticket with the victim does not negate the claim that he was a bona fide passenger; the claimant's statement on oath discharges the initial burden, which then shifts on the Railways to rebut it. (¶9, 10) Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 — r.6 — Delayed investigation report — Held further: The Railways cannot take advantage of their own delay in preparing the investigation report under Rule 6 where no explanation for it is furnished; such a report may be ignored. Award of the Tribunal restored; appeal allowed. (¶11, 12)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 11Another relevant aspect to be noticed is that the claim application was preferred by the claimants on 12.01.2018. It is only after being served with a notice of the said proceedings that the authorities entered into communication for having the investigation report under Rule 6 of the Rules of 2003 prepared. This report was ultimately prepared on 17.05.2018, which is about seven months from the untoward incident. Delay in conducting the inquiry could not be attributed to the claimants and the Railways cannot seek to take advantage of the delay on their part in preparing the investigation report. In Kalandi Charan Sahoo (supra), absence of such inquiry being conducted immediately as required under the Rules of 2003 was held to be a factor against the Railways. There is no explanation on record furnished by the Railways as to the reason for delayed preparation of the investigation report. We are, therefore, inclined to ignore the said investigation report. The same, therefore, cannot come in the way of the claimants in receiving compensation.
Acts & Sections
s.124-A Railways Act, 1989s.123(c)(2) Railways Act, 1989s.16 Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987s.23 Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987r.6 Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of SUKHABHAI NANJIBHAI MAKWANA AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Does mere absence of a ticket with the victim negate a bona fide passenger claim under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections