Back to feed Read the full judgment
IndiaCivil
Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana vs Union Of India
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- Sep 25, 2026
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 1056
- Judges
- Ujjal Bhuyan, Atul S. Chandurkar
AI breakdown
- The dispute was about whether the victim's family should receive compensation for his fatal fall from a train.
- The Supreme Court decided to restore the compensation to the family.
- The High Court had erred in overturning the Tribunal's award, which found the victim was a genuine passenger.
Outcome
The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Taken from the judgment's conclusion. Check the full text for the exact order.
Parties
Applicant
Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana
Respondent
Union Of India
Judgment text (excerpt)
Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana vs Union Of India on 25 September, 2026
2026 INSC 1056
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.12951 OF 2026
SUKHABHAI NANJIBHAI MAKWANA
AND ANOTHER APPELLANTS
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.
1. The appellants are the unfortunate parents of one
Maheshbhai, who while travelling to Surat via Ahmedabad on
27.09.2017 was a victim of an ‘untoward incident’. While travelling
in the general compartment of the train, he fell down on account
of a sudden jerk and jolt when the said train was between
Sabarmati and Ahmedabad Railway Stations. He sustained
multiple grievous injuries and was admitted in hospital. He,
however, succumbed to his injuries on 31.10.2017. The claim
application preferred by the parents under Section 16 of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ABHINAV KUMAR
Date: 2026.09.25
12:31:58 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 13
Civil Appeal No.12951 of 2026
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 19871 was allowed by the Railway
Claims Tribunal2 on 17.06.2022. It held that Maheshbhai was
victim of an ‘untoward incident’ and had suffered an accidental
fall. The claimants were held entitled to compensation of ₹8 lakhs
along with interest @9% per annum from the date of the incident
till the date of the order. The Union of India being aggrieved,
preferred an appeal under Section 23 of the Act of 1987. A learned
Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court3 by the order dated
15.07.2025 allowed the said appeal by holding that there was no
evidence as to the fall of the victim from the train and, therefore,
the incident could not be called an ‘untoward incident’ as defined
under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 19894. The claimants
being aggrieved are in app…

Source: Indian Kanoon (indiankanoon.org). Indian court judgments are public records; the summary and translations are AI-generated.