Judgment :- Aggrieved against the Order of Railway Claims Tribunal dismissing the Claim Petition, wife, children and mother of deceased Sambasivam have filed this appeal. 2. Factual background in a nutshell are as follows: - Applicants/appellants alleged that the deceased Sambasivam was travelling in a EMU train in between Veppampattu and Sevvapet R.S. on 14. 2001 at about 7 a.m., and died due to accidental fall. Sambasivam was working as driver in State Transport Corporation. Stating that they are the legal heirs and dependents of Sambasivam, the appellants filed Claim Petition under Ss.123(c)(2), 124A and 125 Railways Act. Railway resisted the claim and alleged that it was purely a suicidal death. 3. The appellants have examined A.W.1 - Rajan and eye witness A.W.2 -Kumar. Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. Referring to the evidence of A.W.2, Railway Claims Tribunal has held that A.W.2 could not have witnessed the incident. Pointing out the position and lying of the body i.e. severance of head and the body found inside the down line and noticing the pattern of injuries, the learned Tribunal has concluded that death was due to suicide and not of accidental fall and on those findings, dismissed the claim petition. 4. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, learned Counsel for the appellant Mr.S.Subbiah has submitted that when in the Inquest Report and in the Final Opinion, police have recorded a finding that Sambasivam died by accidentally falling down from the train, the Tribunal erred in saying that the death was suicidal death. The learned Counsel has further submitted that under the provisions of the Railways Act, there is always a presumption that a person travelling in train is a bonafide passenger, holding valid ticket and any accidental fall from the train would be falling within the ambit of Sec.123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the following decisions: - 1993 ACJ 846 [Raj Kumari & Anr. v. Union of India]; AIR 2000 Orissa 147 [Union of India v. Jshna Kanhar]; AIR 2003 Andhra Pradesh 56 [Dasari Laxmi v. Union of India]; I (2003) ACC 423 [Agam Shanthamma v. Union of India]; C.M.A.No.2568/2003 dated 12. 2003. 5. The learned Counsel for the Railway Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar has submitted that having regard to the inherent contradictions in the evidence of A.W.2, Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the evidence of A.W.2 – Kumar. 2003. 5. The learned Counsel for the Railway Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar has submitted that having regard to the inherent contradictions in the evidence of A.W.2, Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the evidence of A.W.2 – Kumar. The learned Counsel has further submitted that when the head of the deceased was severed and the body lying inside down line, and keeping in view the pattern of injuries, Tribunal has rightly concluded that it was a suicidal death and that factual finding cannot be interfered with. 6. There is no dispute that death was on the railway track. In the light of rival contentions, the main point falling for consideration is whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the death of Sambasivam was not due to accidental fall but a suicidal death. 7. The claim for compensation arises on account of "accident" as well as the occurrence of an "untoward incident", both of which are defined under the Railways Act. As per Sec.123(a), "accident" means an accident of the nature described in Section 124. As per Sec.123(c), "untoward incident" means - .(1) (i)the commission of terrorist Act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or .(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) he accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. 8. Definite evidence to show that the cause of death of Sambasivam was due to accidental fall is the Inquest Report and the Final Report filed by the Railway Police. Case of suspicious death was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.166/2001, Arakkonam P.S. Investigating Officer has held inquest in the presence of the Panchayathars. After examining the Panchayathars, on seeing the place of occurrence and noting the injuries found on the dead body, in Column IX and XV of the Inquest Report, the Investigating Officer, on opinion of the Panchayathars, held that the death is "accident". After examining the Panchayathars, on seeing the place of occurrence and noting the injuries found on the dead body, in Column IX and XV of the Inquest Report, the Investigating Officer, on opinion of the Panchayathars, held that the death is "accident". In the Inquest Report, the opinion of the Panchayathars are as follows: - TAMIL Same opinion, that death was due to accidental falling down from running train, was reported in the final report filed by the Investigating Officer. 9. In my considered view, the unimpeachable evidence viz., Inquest and Final report was not kept in view by the learned Tribunal. Certain answers elicited from A.W.2 during cross-examination seem to have substantially weighed with the mind of the learned Tribunal. 10. By filing proof affidavit, A.W.2 - Kumar has deposed that he was a co-passenger with deceased Sambasivam and that he had informed the Thiruvallur P.S. about the death of Sambasivam due to accidental fall and that he has also informed the same to A.W.1 – Rajan. During his cross-examination, A.W.2 has stated that he did not inform the Railway Police about the fact that he informed about the death before the Railways. The Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of A.W.2 Kumar mainly for three reasons – (i) if he did really witness the accident, A.W.2 could have immediately stopped the train by pulling the alarm chain and that he could have rushed to the spot where his relative had fallen down; (ii)A.W.2 has not taken any immediate steps in informing the police which any ordinary prudent man is expected to do; (iii)key man had only reported the matter to the railway authorities and A.W.2 could not have witnessed the accident at all. Rejecting the evidence of A.W.2 and noticing that head was severed and body found inside down line, the Tribunal concluded that death was a suicidal death. In my considered view, on the basis of alleged infirmities and contradictions in the evidence of A.W.2, the Tribunal erred in inferring that the death of Sambasivam was a suicidal death. 11. Now let us go by the conclusion of the learned Tribunal. Assuming for the sake of arguments that A.W.2 has not witnessed the incident, the consequence would only be rejection of evidence of A.W.2. That would not in any way lead to the conclusion that the death was suicidal. 11. Now let us go by the conclusion of the learned Tribunal. Assuming for the sake of arguments that A.W.2 has not witnessed the incident, the consequence would only be rejection of evidence of A.W.2. That would not in any way lead to the conclusion that the death was suicidal. As noticed earlier, unimpeachable evidence – Inquest Report and the Final report cannot lightly be brushed aside. 12. For arriving at the conclusion that the death was suicidal, the learned Tribunal has referred to the position of the body i.e., head severed and lying on the southern side of the track and the entire body was lying in-between two tracks and the legs were found towards the northern side. The head and body separately lying in the Track or outside the track depends upon as to how the deceased had fallen down. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant, body of the deceased was found with uniform – blue pant and blue shirt and the deceased, working as a driver in the State Transport Corporation, evidently was after or on his way to duty and that is the reason exactly he was wearing his uniform and there was no possibility of suggesting anything regarding suicide. It may also be noted that the witnesses were not cross examined on the point as to why the deceased should go to the level of committing suicide. The first appellant has also filed proof affidavit but she was not called upon for the purpose of cross-examination on the specific plea taken by the Railways. Without laying any foundation for the specific plea of suicide, it is not open to the Railways to contend that it was only a suicidal death. In my considered view, the position and lie of the body alone cannot conclusively lead to the conclusion that the death was suicidal. 13. That death could have been due to suicide is not a matter of presumption but has to be proved by tangible evidence. Observing that mere position or body is not a pointer for conclusion that death was suicidal, in 2003 ACJ 486 [Union of India v. Gayatri Srivastava], Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, while dealing with the scope of Sec.124-A of the Act has held as follows: - "5. Observing that mere position or body is not a pointer for conclusion that death was suicidal, in 2003 ACJ 486 [Union of India v. Gayatri Srivastava], Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, while dealing with the scope of Sec.124-A of the Act has held as follows: - "5. Proviso (a) to section 124-A of the Railways Act lays down that no compensation shall be payable if passenger dies due to suicide. In the written statement filed before the Tribunal, the appellant took a plea that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and he committed suicide. The material on record shows that Ramesh Chandra Srivastava was posted as fitter grade I at Ballia Station and 2. 1994 was the day of his rest. He had gone to Gorakhpur from where he started in the evening by 511 -Up passenger train for joining his duty at Balia. He had to change the train at Indara Railway Station and, therefore, he alighted there at 21.10 hours. He slipped at the platform and the train ran over him due to which his leg was amputated. At the time of Post-mortem of the body, a valid duty pass was found in the pocket of his clothes. The appellant filed an affidavit of D.C.Tiwari, Law Assistant, wherein it was averred that the deceased committed suicide. Admittedly, D.C.Tiwari was not an eyewitness of the incident nor the appellant examined any other person who may have seen the deceased deliberately and consciously jumping before the train. It is unfortunate that the appellant took such a dishonest plea to deprive the widow and the minor children of the deceased, who as their own employee, from getting any compensation. The sequence of the events clearly show that on weekly rest day he had gone to Gorakhpur and was returning back to Ballia to join duty. There was no earthly reason why he would commit suicide when he had a wife and five minor children. Normally, a person wanting to commit suicide does not do so at the platform of a railway station where a large number of persons are present who may physically stop him and the train is either stationary or crawling at a slow speed. He would do it at a lonely, ar-off place from a railway station where the train is moving at a fast speed. He would do it at a lonely, ar-off place from a railway station where the train is moving at a fast speed. We are of the opinion that on the material on record it is not possible to take any other view than that the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the platform while he was alighting from the train." In the present case also, the deceased was having wife and children and body was found with uniform. There is no reason as to why the deceased should have gone to the extent of committing suicide. 14. The next question falling for consideration is whether the deceased Sambasivam was a bonafide passenger. The ticket was not produced by the appellants before the Tribunal. In III (2002) ACC 431 [Union of India v. B.Koddekar], Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the burden of proof lies on the railways to prove that the deceased was a ticketless passenger. In the absence of discharging that liability by the Railways, it is to be necessarily held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. 15. Under Sec.82-A of the Act, liability of Railway administration to pay compensation for a death in Railway accident arises only if the deceased was a bonafide passenger and not for the death in such accident of any trespasser or ticketless traveller. In 1993 ACJ 846 [Raj Kumari & Anr. v. Union of India], considering the question on whom the onus of proof lies, in such claim cases, the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held as follows: - "5. The main question that arises in this case is on whom the onus of proof lies in such claim cases and whether any presumption under the Evidence Act can be raised. Normally under sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act, the burden to prove such facts, on which the legal right or liability depends, is on such person who asserts existence of these facts. But the question before us is whether the burden of proof that the deceased held a valid ticket, pass or permission during his journey, in which he died in accident, can be placed on his dependants. But the question before us is whether the burden of proof that the deceased held a valid ticket, pass or permission during his journey, in which he died in accident, can be placed on his dependants. Obviously, such burden of proof is impossible to be discharged by the dependants, who can have no means of knowledge, whether the deceased, before boarding the train, had purchased a valid ticket, pass or permission from the railway authorities. It is likely that such a deceased passenger held a valid ticket, pass or permission, but the same is lost in the accident with the death of person and loss of his belongings, if any. 6. The provisions of sections 66, 68, 113 and 122 of the Act do indicate that the person is deemed to be a passenger when he travels either on ticket, pass or with permission of the authorised officer of the Railways. Section 68 contains prohibition against travelling without pass or ticket or permission". 16. The provisions of Sec.113 an 122 of the Act make travelling without ticket punishable under circumstances and liable for payment of fare and fine. The scheme and the Act seen as a whole make it evident that the entry into a railway carriage requires a person to obtain a ticket, pass or permission and in the absence thereof, his action or omission is punishable with imprisonment or fine, including removal from the carriage. In the present case, there is no dispute that the deceased was a driver of Corporation. In the normal circumstances, the deceased would not have travelled in train without ticket or valid authority. Moreover, if the deceased had travelled as a ticketless traveller, one would normally expect the railway authorities to have detected such ticketless travelling. When a person dies in an accident by falling down from train, it is not possible for the legal representatives to produce the ticket or valid authority to travel in the train. Depending upon the facts and circumstances of a given case, the Tribunal/the Appellate Court can infer about the deceased being a bonafide passenger. In the present case, facts and circumstances prima facie indicate that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, who lost his life in the railway accident. 17. The contention of the railways that the death was suicidal is not supported by any material and is liable to be rejected. In the present case, facts and circumstances prima facie indicate that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, who lost his life in the railway accident. 17. The contention of the railways that the death was suicidal is not supported by any material and is liable to be rejected. Compensation is payable to the dependents of a bonafide passenger, who died in an accident. Though ticket was not produced, presumption could be drawn that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, who lost his life in railway accident. The appellants are held entitled to compensation of Rs.Four lakhs. 18. In view of the above discussion, the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. Respondent railways is directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- [Rs. Four lakhs only], within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.