JUDGMENT B.K. PATEL, J. – This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.6.2012 passed by the Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Branch (for short ‘the Tribunal’) dismissing Case No.OA/15/2009 filed by the appellants, who are parents of deceased Sanatana Gochhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), claiming compensation for the death of the deceased. 2. Case of the claimants in the original application is that on 18.11.2008 the deceased along with co-villager A.W.2 boarded 1019 Konark Express train at Pune to travel to Bhubaneswar after purchasing train tickets. In course of journey the deceased accidentally fell down from the running train near Chebrol railway station due to sudden jerk, and push and pull of passengers and was seriously injured. He was taken to the Government Hospital, Elluru for treatment where he succumbed to the injuries. In connection with the death of the deceased railway police registered a case and conducted enquiry, in course of which inquest and post mort examinations were held, and submitted final report. On the basis of such pleadings, it is asserted that death of the deceased having occurred due to untoward incident in terms of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act (for short ‘the Act’), applicants are entitled to compensation. Respondent-railway resisted the claim by filing written statement. It is pleaded that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train. It is averred that the occurrence leading to death of the deceased does not amount to an untoward incident in terms of provision under Section 123(c) of the Act. It is specifically pleaded that since railway ticket was not found in the person of the deceased, purchase of the train ticket is a concocted story. 3. On the basis of the rival pleadings, Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether applicants are sole dependents of the deceased? (2) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? (3) Whether the incident was an untoward incident? (4) Whether the applicants are entitled to get any compensation? (5) What relief? 4. In order to substantial their case claimants examined deceased’s father as A.W.1 and deceased’s co-passenger as A.W.2. Claimants relied also upon documents prepared in course of enquiry by the police. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the Respondent-railway. 5. On appraisal of evidence on record, the Tribunal answered issue no. (5) What relief? 4. In order to substantial their case claimants examined deceased’s father as A.W.1 and deceased’s co-passenger as A.W.2. Claimants relied also upon documents prepared in course of enquiry by the police. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the Respondent-railway. 5. On appraisal of evidence on record, the Tribunal answered issue no. (1) in favour of the claimants holding that the applicants were dependants of the deceased. However, in answering other issues the Tribunal held that the applicants have failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger in possession of valid ticket or that the deceased died on account of accidental fall from the Konark Express, and dismissed the original application. 6. In assailing the impugned judgment it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that claimants adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their claim for compensation under section 124-A of the Act. No rebuttal evidence was adduced from the side of the railway. F.I.R., inquest report and final report establish accidental fall of the deceased from Konark Express. In absence of any rebuttal evidence, finding of the Tribunal that claimants have failed to prove that the deceased died due to accidental fall while travelling in the train as a bona fide passenger is not sustainable. It was argued that in view of nature of evidence of A.W.2, which finds support from documentary evidence, the claimants are entitled to compensation. In support of the contentions, learned counsel for the appellants relied on decisions in Ghanashyam Patra and others vs. Union of India and another : 2013(I)OLR 365; Union of India vs. Leelamma and others: 2010 ACJ 566 and Union of India vs. Hari Narayan Gupta and another: 2008 ACJ 822 . 7. Learned counsel for the respondent supported and defended the impugned order. It was submitted that no ticket was seized from the deceased during his hospitalization or at the time of inquest. It is for the claimants to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Claimants having failed to explain as to why deceased’s train ticket was not seized in course of enquiry by police, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 8. It is for the claimants to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Claimants having failed to explain as to why deceased’s train ticket was not seized in course of enquiry by police, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 8. From the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties it is apparent that the question raised in this appeal is as to whether the Tribunal has properly appreciated the materials on record, more particularly evidence of A.W.2. In dealing with the question it is to be borne in mind that the deceased who was a resident of Cuttack district in the State of Orissa was a victim of the accident in Andhra Pradesh while travelling in Mumbai-Bhubaneswar Konark Express. 9. In Union of India vs. Hari Narayan Gupta and another (supra) it has been held by Rajasthan High Court as follows: “Of Course, section 101 of the Evidence Act places the burden of proof on the person, who desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of the facts, which he asserts. But in the case of the railway accident where a passenger has died, the claimants would find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prove certain facts, which are beyond their reach and control. Since the claimants may not know whether the deceased had purchased a valid ticket or not, they would not be in a position to prove the fact that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. However, since the Railways appoints ticket collector on its behalf to check the valid ticket of the passengers, the Railways has a mechanism for finding out and discovering whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not. Since the passenger is presumed to be innocent, a legal presumption can be drawn that he had followed the law and that he had, indeed, purchased a valid ticket prior to boarding the train. Considering the fact that there is an equal presumption in favour of the Railways that the railway officers would have discharged his duty of checking the ticket, in a bona fide manner, it can be presumed that the ticket collector would have examined whether the deceased possesses a valid ticket or not. Therefore, the Railways has means through which they can easily prove that deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Therefore, the Railways has means through which they can easily prove that deceased was not a bona fide passenger. However, the burden of proof lies on the railway administration to lead evidence and to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.” 10. In Union of India vs. Leelamma and others (supra) it has been pointed out by the Kerala High Court that when claimants assert that the deceased had purchased train ticket, burden of proof lies on the railways to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. 11. This Court also in Ghanashyam Patra and others vs. Union of India and another (supra) has taken similar view upon reference to two decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. It was observed:- “In Union of India v. B.Koddekar and others: 2003 ACJ 1286 placing reliance on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raj Kumari v.Union of India: 1993 ACJ 846 it was held that burden does not lie on the dependents of the deceased to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and the burden is on the railway administration to prove that the deceased was a ticketless traveler or was not a bona fide passenger. In Union of India, South Central Railways v. Kurukundu Balakrishnaiah and others: 2004 ACJ 529 upon reference to number of judicial pronouncements it was held that burden lies on the Railways to prove the plea that legal representative of the victims of untoward incident are not entitled to compensation on any of the defences available to Railway in the statute so as to disentitle the claimants to claim compensation.” 12. In the present case, claimants specifically plead in their original application that the deceased boarded the train after purchasing ticket bearing No.23649154 dated 18.11.2008. In support of such contention appellants/claimants filed the train ticket before the Tribunal. That apart, claimants examined A.W.2 who was travelling with the deceased. It is the specific evidence of A.W.2 that he purchased two train tickets at Pimpri railway station from Pimpri to Bhubaneswar on 18.11.2008 and boarded the train along with the deceased. From Pimpri they came to Pune where they boarded Konark Express train. On 19.11.2008 near Chebrol Railway Station the deceased fell down from the running train. It is the specific evidence of A.W.2 that he purchased two train tickets at Pimpri railway station from Pimpri to Bhubaneswar on 18.11.2008 and boarded the train along with the deceased. From Pimpri they came to Pune where they boarded Konark Express train. On 19.11.2008 near Chebrol Railway Station the deceased fell down from the running train. The assertion of A.W.2 with regard to purchase of tickets for himself and the deceased has not been assailed during his cross-examination. It is not disputed that police registered Elluru G.R.P.S.Case No.156 of 2008 in connection with the deceased’s death upon receipt of information from hospital. Inquest witnesses opined that the deceased, while travelling by Konark Express (down line) on 19.11.2008 at about 4.10 P.M. when the train was passing through Chebrol, accidentally fell down from the train. He was shifted to government hospital in an ambulance. In the final report submitted by police there is specific mention of the tickets which A.W.2 had purchased for himself and the deceased. 13. In spite of oral evidence of A.W.2 and documents prepared in course of enquiry conducted by police substantiating the plea of purchase of tickets placed on record on behalf of the claimants, railway has not placed any rebuttal evidence. However, the Tribunal appears to have embarked upon a scathing criticism of not only evidence of A.W.2 but also contents of documents prepared by the police in course of enquiry upon reference to extraneous factors without bringing such factors to the notice of the claimants by way of cross-examination. As burden was on the railway to disprove the claimants? assertion that the deceased accidentally fell from the Konark Express while travelling as bona fide passenger, in absence of any evidence adduced by the railway, there is no scope to discard the evidence of A.W.2 which finds support from the documents prepared in course of inquiry by police. Claimants are found to have adduced cogent evidence in support of their assertion that the deceased died due accidental fall while travelling in the train after purchasing ticket. The impugned order is liable to be set aside. 14. In view of the above, the FAO is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Claimants are found to have adduced cogent evidence in support of their assertion that the deceased died due accidental fall while travelling in the train after purchasing ticket. The impugned order is liable to be set aside. 14. In view of the above, the FAO is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The respondent is held to be liable to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) along with interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum to the appellants-claimants from the date of filing of the claim application till payment. Compensation amount along with interest shall be deposited with the Tribunal within a period of two months from today upon which the Tribunal shall direct deposit of seventy per cent of the amount in the names of the appellants-claimants in fixed deposit and release the balance amount to them. FAO allowed.