JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.06.2007 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 73/O AII/RCT/NGP/2005, whereby the compensation in the sum of Rs.2,40,000/- was awarded to the claimant along with interest @ 6% per annum on the same, till realization thereof. 2. Facts briefly stated are that applicant claimant claimed a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- on account of amputation of his hand due to injury sustained in untoward incident occurred at about 5.45 p.m. on 30.8.2004. According to the claimant, he was to travel by Wardha passenger from Ballarshah to Hinganghat. He had purchased railway ticket of Rs.20/-. He boarded the passenger at Ballarshah. Then passenger reached Chandrapur railway station. There was heavy rush for the train. Claimant could not succeed to enter in the compartment. He was required to get down from the compartment so as to make way for passengers alighting from the train. Then claimant again started to board the train. He was required to stand in the door of the compartment on account of very heavy rush. Unfortunately, he fell down due to sudden jerk and his left palm came under the wheel of the train. In the incident he also lost his ticket. The untoward incident was informed to police. Police referred him to General Hospital at Chandrapur where he was examined, treated and discharged. A certificate that he became handicapped was also issued to the claimant. 3. In support of the claim, the claimant sworn an affidavit and was also examined before the court. He reiterated in his affidavit that while he went to Ballarshah on 30.8.2004 to meet his friend Vilas, he purchased railway ticket from Ballarshah to Hinganghat. Due to heavy rush and jerk he fell down from the running train and was injured on his palm. He also lost the railway ticket in the untoward incident and sustained 65% of permanent disability. The claimant made reference to documentary evidence such as MLC report Exh. 1, discharge Card Exh. 2, handicap certificate Exh. 3, ration card Exh. 4, Identity certificate Exh. 5, transfer certificate Exh. 7 and police Inform Book Exh. 7. Thus he claimed sum of Rs.2,40,000/- as compensation on the ground that he received serious injury in untoward incident. The claimant was cross-examined on the basis of his affidavit and documents tendered by him. 2, handicap certificate Exh. 3, ration card Exh. 4, Identity certificate Exh. 5, transfer certificate Exh. 7 and police Inform Book Exh. 7. Thus he claimed sum of Rs.2,40,000/- as compensation on the ground that he received serious injury in untoward incident. The claimant was cross-examined on the basis of his affidavit and documents tendered by him. On behalf of the railway administration, except suggestions to deny version of the claimant, no admission was elicited in the course of cross-examination. The claimant was also supported by evidence of Vilas Krishnaji Varkhade who deposed that Rajesh (injured) had been to Ballarshah and that one ticket for his return journey was purchased by Vilas. The information regarding untoward incident resulting in injuries to Rajesh came to this witness on the following day. On behalf of the railway administration, Shri Shatrughan Somaji Thulkar, Deputy Station Superintendent at Chandrapur who did duty from 16 to 24 hours was examined. According to the witness, he did not know about any untoward incident as it was not reported or informed to him. Thus, there was no entry in his diary regarding untoward incident on 30.8.2004. On the basis of this evidence, railway administration disputed the claim in order to argue that the documents were not proved in accordance with the principles mentioned in the Evidence Act. It is also disputed that there was disability to the extent of 65% as claimed. The railway administration also disputed the claim of valid railway ticket with him while travelling as passenger. Thus, it is submitted that the Tribunal erroneously even in the absence of legal evidence granted the compensation. Therefore, the learned advocate for the appellant prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment and order. 4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the information regarding the untoward incident was lodged by police. Railway Police Chowkey Ballarshah had referred the claimant under Police Inform Book which was signed by In charge Officer of Railway Police Chowkey as well as Casualty Medical Officer and Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Chandrapur on 30.8.2004 at about 6 p.m. Rajeshkumar Aherwar was referred on account of crush injury on his left hand occurred in the untoward incident. Railway Police Chowkey Ballarshah had referred the claimant under Police Inform Book which was signed by In charge Officer of Railway Police Chowkey as well as Casualty Medical Officer and Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Chandrapur on 30.8.2004 at about 6 p.m. Rajeshkumar Aherwar was referred on account of crush injury on his left hand occurred in the untoward incident. The claimant Rajesh was examined in detail at General Hospital, Chandrapur and it is mentioned in the MLC report that the claimant had suffered crush injury due to fall from train. The Medical Board Members from General Hospital, Wardha issued certificate that claimant had suffered 65% disability due to amputation of the wrist of left hand. The applicant had also relied on the identity certificate, ration card and school leaving certificate to establish his personal identity and relied upon letter from Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Nagpur addressed to Chief Claim Officer, Central Railway Mumbai CST regarding the untoward incident wherein it was contended by the Divisional Railway Manager that claimant Rajesh had gone to his friend Vilas at Ballarshah on 30.8.2004 by passenger train and after meeting him he purchased ticket which he had kept in his shirt pocket and that when the passenger reached at Chandrapur Station, he got down from the train and when the train started, he attempted to board train but his hands slipped and he fell down. Such a reference was made to the statement of Rajesh in detail by Divisional Manager, Central Railway, Nagpur. Reference is also made to statutory investigation report furnished by R.P.F. Inspector, Chandrapur who claimed that Rajesh attempted to board running train at Chandrapur Railway Station after its departure from the station and in that attempt he slipped and fell down and his left palm came under the wheels of the train and he was taken by one vendor Gopal Naidu to General Hospital, Chandrapur. Staff of Ramnagar Police Station had also reiterated the incident that Rajesh had attempted to board the running train and that he slipped and fell down and his left arm came under the wheel of the train. As such, it appears that the incident was in the knowledge of the railway authority as well as the police and injured was referred to Government Hospital for medial treatment and statements of claimant as well as other persons were recorded by the police regarding the untoward incident. As such, it appears that the incident was in the knowledge of the railway authority as well as the police and injured was referred to Government Hospital for medial treatment and statements of claimant as well as other persons were recorded by the police regarding the untoward incident. The contention that documentary evidence ought to have been proved strictly according to the principles of Indian Evidence Act and secondly that burden of proof never shifted on the railway administration is not acceptable particularly in the facts and circumstances of the case when the claimant sworn affidavit in support of the claim and made reference to documentary evidence. He was allowed to be cross-examined on behalf of the railway administration. He also examined one more witness in support of his claim. As against this oral as well as documentary evidence, the railway administration chose to rely upon the denial simplicitor by its Deputy Station Superintendent, Chandrapur Shri Thulkar who except stating about his ignorance of the incident did not advance the case of defence. In such a case, when a victim suffers in untoward incident and he is an injured witness, his evidence before the Tribunal along with documentary evidence in support thereof ought to be kept on high pedestal than a mere denial of the incident by an interested witness on behalf of the railway administration. Section 123(c) and 124(a) of the Railways Act, 1987 were enacted with a view to enable the bona-fide claimant to receive compensation on account of untoward incident and unless conduct of such claimant is blameworthy on account of exceptional facts which must be pleaded and established by the railway administration, the claimant ought to succeed to receive compensation on the evidence which appears reasonably acceptable upon the preponderance of probability. It was not a case of railway administration that the claimant attempted to commit suicide or that he received injury voluntarily inflicted upon himself etc. as provided for within exceptions in proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act. Learned advocate on behalf of the respondent made reference to the ruling in Union of India Vs. S. Rekha and others 2005 ACJ 535 to argue that if any passenger slips and fells down from the train, the contention that he was not bona-fide passenger when he met with an untoward incident ought to be specifically pleaded and established by the railway administration. S. Rekha and others 2005 ACJ 535 to argue that if any passenger slips and fells down from the train, the contention that he was not bona-fide passenger when he met with an untoward incident ought to be specifically pleaded and established by the railway administration. In the aforesaid ruling the Andhra Pradesh High Court considered the relevant provisions and concluded that except in case the claim is hit by any of the exceptions (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, the railways shall pay compensation to the claimant. The appeal by railways was, therefore, dismissed. The learned advocate for the respondent also made a reference to Union of India Vs. Khairunnisa Begum and others 2005 ACJ 286 in order to fortify the submission that when a passenger slips while boarding the running train and sustains injury, it must be treated as an untoward incident and the claimant is entitled to compensation. In the Khairunnisa case, the victim is alleged to have boarded the running train and slipped and fell down. It was treated as untoward incident and the appeal challenging compensation was dismissed. It appears that the learned Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances in detail and concluded that the claimant had sustained injury in untoward incident and thus he was a bona-fide passenger in the train when he met with untoward incident which resulted in 65% of his disability. Thus, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the rulings referred, no fault can be found in the judgment and order. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. The amount deposited be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement thereof to the claimant according to law. Appeal dismissed.