S. L. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) INVOKING appellate jurisdiction of this court under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act' for short), the appellants have filed this appeal calling in question the legality, propriety, correctness and validity of the judgment dated 6. 1. 1999, passed by Railway Claims tribunal, Bhopal in O. A. No. 57 of 1997, dismissing the application filed by the appellants for compensation on account of death of Ganpat who is alleged to have died in an accident or in an untoward incident as defined under sections 123 and 124-A of the Act. ( 2 ) THE facts which led to filing of this appeal shortly narrated are that claimants-appellants filed an application under the act for a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 claiming themselves to be the legal representatives of deceased Ganpat who died while travelling in a train from Indore to mhow. ( 3 ) THE case of the appellants before the claims Tribunal in short was that deceased ganpat was a bona fide passenger of train no. 5811 Up Ajmer-Kachiguda Express for travelling from Indore to Mhow on 15. 2. 1996. When deceased Ganpat entered in the compartment, the train moved suddenly without giving any whistle or any other warning. Because of the jerk, the hands of the deceased slipped from the bar which he was holding. As a result, the deceased fell down under the train. The train ran over the deceased, as a result of which he died. The post-mortem of the deceased was performed. The doctors opined that the deceased died due to multiple injuries. ( 4 ) THE allegations made in the claim petition were controverted by the Railways. They alleged that the deceased fell down from the train because of his own negligence and, therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation. ( 5 ) THE matter was heard by the two members of the Tribunal. As there was difference of opinion between the learned members of the Tribunal, the Chairman, railway Claims Tribunal nominated a third Member under section 21 of the Act to give his opinion. After hearing the parties, the learned third Member dismissed the appellants' claim on the ground that they have failed to prove that the deceased was holding a valid railway ticket. After hearing the parties, the learned third Member dismissed the appellants' claim on the ground that they have failed to prove that the deceased was holding a valid railway ticket. As it could not be established that deceased was a bona fide passenger, his legal representatives are not entitled to any compensation. ( 6 ) IT is this judgment of Railway Claims tribunal which is the cause of grievance of the appellants. ( 7 ) I have heard Mrs. Amrit Ruprah, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. P. Sinha, counsel for the respondent and perused the record. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the claim for compensation could not have been negatived by the Tribunal only on the ground that it could not be proved that deceased was holding a valid railway ticket, pass or permission for the journey. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that when a person is found dead as a result of accident or any untoward incident in a railway carriage, in which he was travelling, a presumption may be drawn under section 114 of the evidence Act that the deceased was a bona fide passenger keeping in view the prohibition under section 68 of the Railways act, 1890 (section 55 of 1989 Act) against the boarding of a train without a ticket. Since ticketless travel is an illegal act, the presumption is of innocence in favour of such one of the travellers or passengers in a train. It is for the railway administration to prove contrary and the burden in such circumstances that the passenger was a ticketless traveller or was not a bona fide railway traveller, should be on the railway administration which has special means of knowledge as to whether any ticket was issued to the passenger or whether at any point before or at the end of journey, he was checked and detected by the staff of the Railways as an unauthorised person without ticket, pass or permission. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied on two Division Bench decisions of this court in Raj Kumari v. Union of India, 1993 ACJ 846 (MP) and Union of India v. Jshna Kanhar, 2001 ACJ 871 (Orissa ). In support of the contention, learned counsel relied on two Division Bench decisions of this court in Raj Kumari v. Union of India, 1993 ACJ 846 (MP) and Union of India v. Jshna Kanhar, 2001 ACJ 871 (Orissa ). ( 10 ) SO far as the presumption as argued by the counsel for the appellants is concerned the matter is covered by the aforesaid division Bench decisions of this court. Therefore, the contention is acceptable and it is held that the burden to prove that the passenger was travelling without ticket lies on the Railways. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that as per the case of appellants themselves, the deceased fell down immediately when he boarded the train. There was no occasion for checking as to whether the deceased had purchased the ticket. It was not found either in his pocket or in his luggage or on the spot. ( 12 ) THE contention is not acceptable. There is no evidence that the entire luggage of the deceased was seized or his pocket was searched or the ticket was searched at the spot. ( 13 ) THERE can be many reasons due to which the ticket could not be traced. It cannot be ruled out that the deceased was having ticket in his hand and when he fell down, the ticket was misplaced. It can also not be ruled out that the ticket was in the luggage which the deceased was carrying. There is no evidence that the luggage was seized. Therefore, simply because the police authorities did not make efforts to discover or recover the ticket, it could not be said that the deceased was travelling without ticket. ( 14 ) SO far as the present case is concerned, there is not only a presumption in favour of the appellants but there is evidence on record to come to the conclusion that deceased was travelling with ticket. In the affidavit filed by Ramnath, it has been clearly stated that he also accompanied the deceased while travelling from Indore to mhow. The witness has stated that he himself and the deceased both purchased the tickets. When they were boarding, the train immediately moved without giving any whistle, as a consequence, the deceased fell down from the train. Wheels of the train ran over the deceased and consequently he died. The witness has stated that he himself and the deceased both purchased the tickets. When they were boarding, the train immediately moved without giving any whistle, as a consequence, the deceased fell down from the train. Wheels of the train ran over the deceased and consequently he died. ( 15 ) NO affidavit or any other evidence has been given by the respondent to rebut the statement made by witness Ramnath in his affidavit. There was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Ramnath made in the affidavit to the effect that deceased purchased the ticket. In view of the affidavit filed by Ramnath and in view of the presumption as stated above, the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and was travelling without ticket cannot be countenanced. ( 16 ) I am of the view that the appellants are entitled to claim compensation. ( 17 ) SO far as the amount of compensation is concerned judicial Members awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum as per the Schedule to Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation)Rules, 1990. The compensation payable for death is Rs. 2,00,000, therefore, the applicants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000. ( 18 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. Judgment impugned of the Railway Claims Tribunal is set aside. The application filed by the claimants is allowed. The respondent shall pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 to the appellants along with the interest as awarded by the judicial Members of the Tribunal. Appeal allowed. .