JUDGMENT 1. The appellants / applicants have preferred the present appeal against the Order dated 01.02.2008, in O.A.No.52 of 2005, on the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench . 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The appellants, who are the wife and father of the deceased K.Devan, had filed a claim application in O.A.No.52 of 2005, on the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-as compensation from the respondent for the death of the said K.Devan in a Railway accident. 3. It was submitted that the deceased used to go daily from Veppampattu to Pattaraivakkam by EMU Train and that he had purchased monthly season ticket from Veppampattu to Pattaraivakkam. It was submitted that on 23.12.2004, at about 10.50 hours, the deceased boarded one of the EMU Train at Veppampattu and that when the train reached Thirumullaivoyal, the deceased had slipped and fallen down from the train due to the speed and jerk in the train and sustained grievous head injury. It was further stated that the second class season ticket had been lost and could not be traced. 4. The respondent, in their counter statement, had submitted that when the EMU Train AM 6 of 23.12.2004 was running between Annannur and Thirumullaivoyil Railway Station, it was abruptly stopped at KM17/14 and two persons requested the guard of the train to carry an injured person to Chennai Central for treatment and hence they were allowed to load the injured person into the compartment and the station master at Moore Market Complex of Chennai Central had sent him to the Government General Hospital for treatment. It was submitted that the injured person was not a bonafide passenger of any EMU Train on 23.12.2004 from Veppampattu Railway Station to Pattaravakkam Railway Station and that the deceased was not in possession of any season ticket and that the applicants had also not furnished the season ticket number. It was also submitted that there was no proof to show that he had actually travelled and fallen down from the Train and that if he had fallen down from the train, as alleged, the co-passengers would have noticed it and tried to stop the train by pulling the chain. It was also submitted that there was no proof to show that he had actually travelled and fallen down from the Train and that if he had fallen down from the train, as alleged, the co-passengers would have noticed it and tried to stop the train by pulling the chain. But, no passenger had pulled the chain or reported the matter to the nearest railway station and as such the deceased had not fallen down from the train within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act read with Section 124(A) of the said Act. 5. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed six issues namely: i. Whether the applicants can prove that the deceased K.Devan was a bonafide passenger at the time of incident as alleged? ii. Whether the applicants can prove that they are the only dependants of the deceased K.Devan? iii. Whether the applicants can prove that the deceased K.Devan sustained injuries in an untoward incident on 23.12.2004 prior to 10.50 hours at Thirumullaivoil RS while travelling by EMU Train and succumbed to injuries on 31.12.2004 at Government Genral Hospital? iv. Whether the respondent proves that the applicants are not entitled to any relief for the reasons set out in para 2 of the reply statement and whether the respondent disproves the case of the applicants? v. Whether the applicants are entitled to any compensation and if so, how much? and vi. What other relief? 6. On the applicants' side, the first applicant namely wife of the deceased was examined as A.W.1 and seven documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A7 namely FIR, inquest report with english translation, PMC, death report, death certificate, final report with english version, legal heirship certificate with english version. On the respondent's side two witnesses were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and no document was marked. 7. A.W.1 had adduced evidence that the second class season ticket could not be traced as it had been lost, while her husband was being shifted to Government General Hospital. In the course of cross-examination, she had stated that she did not know in which company her husband was working in Pataraivakkam. She had further stated that he used to purchase season ticket for travel. In the course of cross-examination, she had stated that she did not know in which company her husband was working in Pataraivakkam. She had further stated that he used to purchase season ticket for travel. The Tribunal had observed that neither the journey ticket was recovered for the person of the deceased nor was he found to have purchased any such ticket to undertake the journey and that no such information was recorded either in the inquest report or in the final report. The Tribunal on observing that the deceased did not possess any valid ticket to undertake the journey, if at all he had performed the journey, held that the deceased cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger within the meaning of Section 2(29) or the explanation to Section 124(A) of the Act. On scrutiny of Ex.A7, the Tribunal had observed that the applicants are the legal heirs of the deceased K.Devan. 8. R.W.1 had adduced evidence that when the train No.AM 6 of 23.12.2004, was running between Annanur and Thirumullaivoil Railway Station, it was stopped by some unknown public at KM 17/14 and that two persons approached him and requested his permission to carry the injured person to Chennai for medical treatment and that he permitted the same on humanitarian grounds. In the cross-examination, he had stated that when four or five coaches were on the platform of Thirumullaivoil Railway Station, the public approached and informed that they want to take an injured person to Government Hospital and that he informed about the incident on arrival at Chennai Central. 9. R.W.2 had adduced evidence that there was no ticket of any person falling from the train or run over reported by any passenger or by general public to him. In the cross-examination, he had stated that his job is to issue tickets from the counter and that he was not an eye-witness to the incident. He admitted that whenever there is an incident of run over or death in the railway station premises, information is given to him and he in turn would inform the railway police telephonically. He admitted that he did not know at what time AM6 arrived at his halt Station and also stated that he did not know about the arrival and departure of train at the station since he was located inside the halt station building. 10. He admitted that he did not know at what time AM6 arrived at his halt Station and also stated that he did not know about the arrival and departure of train at the station since he was located inside the halt station building. 10. The Tribunal had observed from the evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 that the request made to them was to only load an injured person in the train so as to take him to General Hospital. The Tribunal further observed that in case there was a genuine fall from the above train, there would definitely have been oral or written complaint or representation by the co-passengers and message from the guard and clerk-in-charge to the higher officials as well as railway police regarding occurrence of such incident. The Tribunal had also observed that the applicants in order to establish the genuineness of the case, could have filed the statements of the general public, who had taken the injured person from Thirumullaivoyil Station to the Government Hospital and that in the instant case it had not been done. Hence, the Tribunal on observing that no reliable evidence had been let in on the part of the applicants and on considering the deposition of the guard and clerk-in-charge on behalf of the respondent held that the applicants have not proved that the deceased K.Devan sustained injuries in an untoward incident on 23.12.2004. Hence, the Tribunal on observing that apart from the request from the guard and public to load an injured person in the train, there was no other evidence to show that the person, who was moved to the General Hospital was a bonafide passenger, who had met with an untoward incident in the course of his journey, before the train reached Tirumullaivoil, held that the applicants are not entitled to any compensation and dismissed the claim application filed by them. 11. Aggrieved by the said Order of dismissal, the appellants/applicants have preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 12. 11. Aggrieved by the said Order of dismissal, the appellants/applicants have preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has contended in the appeal that the Tribunal failed to note that the deceased who had fallen down from an EMU Train between Annanur and Thirumullaivoyil Railway Station on 23.12.2004 in the morning prior to 10.50 hours was noticed by the general public, who stopped an incoming EMU train AM6 and boarded the injured person for being shifted to Government General Hospital, Chennai, wherein he died after seven days on 31.12.2004 and all the personal belongings of the deceased could not be traced. 13. It is contended that the Tribunal had failed to note that the burden of proof regarding the travel authority is very much on the respondent and that the deceased being a regular worker and a season ticket holder, the presumption would be that he was a bona fide passenger. It is contended that the Tribunal failed to note that in Column No.9 of the inquest report, it had been confirmed by the investigating officer that the deceased had fallen down from the EMU Train and sustained grievous head injuries and that he was noticed by the general public, who shifted the injured in an incoming EMU train AM6 for being admitted at Government General Hospital, Chennai. As per the findings of the investigation officer recorded in Column No.15 of the said report, the Panchayatdars were individually and unanimously given the opinion that the deceased, who had fallen down from train on 23.12.2004 had succumbed to the injuries suffered by him in the fall. 14. It is also contended that the Tribunal had failed to note that R.W.1, who is a guard of EMU Train AM6, has admitted that he was requested by the general public to shift the injured at KM 17/14 between Annanoor and Thirumullaivoil Railway Station and had stated that he does not know anything about the case and that he is not an eye witness of the incident. The evidence of R.W.2, who is a booking clerk has no value as he too was neither an eyewitness nor had he received any information about the fall or death of the deceased. The evidence of R.W.2, who is a booking clerk has no value as he too was neither an eyewitness nor had he received any information about the fall or death of the deceased. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the order of the Tribunal and to grant compensation of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the appellants herein. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that when EMU Train was running between Annanoor and Thirumullaivoil Railway Station, it was abruptly stopped at KM 17/14 and two persons requested the guard of the train to carry an injured person to Chennai Central for treatment and hence they were allowed to board the injured person and the respondent Station Master at Moore Market at Chennai had sent him to the Government General Hospital for treatment. As such, the respondent Railway Authorities had rendered all possible help to save the life of the injured person. Further, the deceased had neither possessed any season ticket nor an ordinary ticket to travel in the train and as such the deceased had not travelled as a bona fide passenger. Further, there is no evidence to show that the deceased had fallen down from the train. If he had fallen down from the train, the co-passengers would have pulled the alarm chain and stopped it. But, in the instant case, they had not done so. Hence, considering all the aspects, the Tribunal had rejected the claim. 16. On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the dismissal order of the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that FIR had been registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police Avadi Railway Police Station, Chennai. As such, it is seen that the deceased had died in an 'untoward incident' in the railway premises, while he was proceeding in the train. 17. Further, inquest had been conducted in the presence of five panchayatdars and the inquest report clearly reveals that the deceased had travelled in the train and that due to the crowed in the entrance of the compartment of train, he had accidentally slipped and fallen down. Hence, this Court holds that the deceased died in an 'untoward accident' on 01.01.2005. Further, the postmortem report reveals that he had sustained skull injuries. Hence, this Court holds that the deceased died in an 'untoward accident' on 01.01.2005. Further, the postmortem report reveals that he had sustained skull injuries. Hence, this Court directs the respondent herein to pay compensation a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, to the credit of O.A.No.52 of 2005, on the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 18. After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the applicants to withdraw their compensation amount, as per ratio to be fixed by the Tribunal, lying in the credit of O.A.No.52 of 2005, on the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Judgment and after identification of the applicants by their counsel. 19. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed and the Order dated 01.02.2008, in O.A.No.52 of 2005, on the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, is modified. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There is no order as to costs.