ORDER : Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J. 1. The instant misc. appeal projects a challenge to the judgment and award made by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, for compensation in favour of the non-appellant-claimants for an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees: Four Lakh); without any interest. 2. Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation are that one Om Prakash (deceased) died in an “untoward incident” on 25th July, 2002, while he was traveling by Train No.HNG-1 EMU from Sahibabad to Delhi Nizamuddin on a valid 2nd class ticket. It is pleaded case of the non-appellant claimants that deceased-Om prakash died of fall from the moving train near Village Karkar, on account of heavy rush in the train. It is further reflected from the materials available on record that Om Prakash (deceased) fell down from the train near Pole No. 11/249, and suffered serious injuries resulting into his death. 3. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, in the backdrop of the pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced and materials available on record, concluded that the deceased (Om Prakash) was traveling by train No.HNG-1 EMU from Gaziabad to Delhi Nizamuddin, on a valid 2nd class railway journey ticket and thus, he was a bona fide passenger. Further the deceased died of accidental fall from the train having sustained grievous injuries, and therefore, the incident is covered within the ambit of Section 123 (c) (2) of Railways Act, 1989. 4. The only arguments raised on behalf of the appellant while challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 11th December, 2007; is that at the time of incident, Om Prakash (deceased) was not in possession of a valid ticket, and thus, he was not a bona fide passenger. Furthermore, the claimants could not prove the fact that the incident was covered within the ambit of Section 123(c) (2) read with Section 124(A) of the Railway Act, 1989. 5. Per contra: Mr. Ajay Shukla, learned counsel appearing for non-appellant-claimants submits that the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, on a careful consideration of pleadings of the parties and materials available on record, rightly concluded that the deceased (Om Prakash) died of grievous injuries suffered by him as a result of fall from Train No. HNG-1 EMU, from Gaziabad to Delhi Nizammudin. Per contra: Mr. Ajay Shukla, learned counsel appearing for non-appellant-claimants submits that the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, on a careful consideration of pleadings of the parties and materials available on record, rightly concluded that the deceased (Om Prakash) died of grievous injuries suffered by him as a result of fall from Train No. HNG-1 EMU, from Gaziabad to Delhi Nizammudin. It is further contended that deceased was in possession of a valid ticket and the mere fact that the ticket could not be recovered at the place of the incident, the same cannot be made a ground to challenge the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award and judgment passed by the Tribunal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar. 7. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, in view of the pleadings of the parties framed as many as four issues, which read thus: ”1. Whether on 25/7/2002, deceased Shri Om Prakash was traveling by Train No. HNG-1 EMU from Gaziabad to Delhi Nizamuddin on a valid 2nd class railway journey ticket and was a bona fide passenger of the said train? 2. Whether the deceased accidentally fell down from the said train, sustained grievous injuries and died on the sport as a result thereof as alleged in the claim application and the said incident falls within the purview of Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989? 3. Whether the applicants are the sole dependents of the deceased and are entitled to compensation as claimed under Para 16 of the claim petition? 4. Any other relief?” 8. The claimant/non-appellant-Mohan Ram appeared before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, as a witness in support of the claim petition stating that having received no information about his son (deceased), he went to Sahibabad on 5th August, 2002, and on an inquiry, he was informed by are Veer Pal Singh that Om Prakash (deceased), died in the Railway accident on 25th July, 2002. 9. The fact was also confirmed from the Police Station, Link Road, Gaziabad, where he identified the cloths, ring and photograph of the (deceased-Om Prakash). 9. The fact was also confirmed from the Police Station, Link Road, Gaziabad, where he identified the cloths, ring and photograph of the (deceased-Om Prakash). Mohan Ram specifically stated about the fact that his son (deceased Om Prakash) was in possession of a valid ticket, which might have been lost or destroyed in the process of shifting his dead-body from the place of incident. 10. Another witness, namely, Jai Pal, has also corroborated the stand of witness - Mohan Ram. 11. The Tribunal on a consideration of pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced so also in view of the opinions in the case of Smt. Bhagwani Giri v. Union of India: 2005 (1) ACC 137 (D.B.), Union of India v. Hari Naryan Gupta: 2007 (1) DNJ Rajasthan 55, Union of India v. Mr. Michael and Anr. 2002 (1) DNJ 139 and in the case of Gullipalli Lakshmikanthamma v. General Manager, South Central Railway, Sikandrabad: 2002 (3) TAC 389; concluded that since the Railway Administration is an instrumentality of the State, obviously the burden of proving that the passenger was travelling ticket-less, and hence, was not a bona fide passenger, lies on the Railway Administration. 12. In the case of Hari Narayan Gupta (Supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court while considering the definition of “Passenger” as defined under Section 124-A, and the phrase “untoward incidents" as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, held thus: “8. Moreover, the explanation appended to Section 124-A further defines the word “passenger” as including “a railway servant on duty and a person who has purchased a ticket for traveling by a train carrying passenger, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes victim of an untoward incident”. Moreover, the explanation appended to Section 124-A further defines the word “passenger” as including “a railway servant on duty and a person who has purchased a ticket for traveling by a train carrying passenger, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes victim of an untoward incident”. The expression “untoward incident” has been defined by Section 123(c), as under: (1) (i) The commission of a 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) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. 9. Section 124A of the Act imposes a liability on the Railways in case of “untoward incident” as under: 124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident - When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependent of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident: Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this Section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to - (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him; (b) Self-inflicted injury; (c) his own criminal act; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. Explanation- For the purpose of this section, “passenger” includes - (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident. 10. Thus, in case a person meets with an untoward incident, the Railway is liable to compensate the claimant whether or not there has been wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration. 11. The first and foremost cardinal principle of Common Law is that “every man is innocent, till proven guilty”. The burden of proving a person guilty lies on the State or on instrumentality of the State. Since the Railway Administration is an instrumentality of the State, obviously the burden of proving that the passenger was traveling ticket-less and, hence, was not a bona fide passenger lies on the Railway Administration. 12. 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 Railway appoints ticket collector on its behalf to check the valid ticket of the passengers, the Railway 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 railway 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. Considering the fact that there is an equal presumption in favour of the railway 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 Railway has a means through which they can easily prove that the 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. 13. There is yet another aspect of the matter, prior to traveling, a passenger neither records, nor leaves any information with the family members about the valid ticket bought by him. During the course of traveling and specially after he meets with an accident, the body of the deceased is transported and is transferred on various occasions. During the period of alleged accident and the discovery of the body, many things may transpire and the ticket may be lost but unknown to others. Therefore, in case, the ticket is lost, it would be almost impossible for the claimants, who are the members of the bereaved family, to establish that the deceased was traveling with a valid ticket. Considering the fact that Section 124 and Section 124A of the Act are social beneficial piece of legislation, by placing the burden of proof on the claimants the benefit of these two beneficiary provisions would be denied to the claimants. An interpretation of the law, which dilutes the very purpose of a provision should be shunned. Therefore, examined from any angle, it is clear that the burden of proving the fact that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not lies on the Railway Administration and not on the claimants. 14. In the case of Raj Kumari (supra), their Lordships of the Madhya Pradesh High Court were seized of the same issue as in this case. Although the said case arose under the Railways Act, 1890 but Sections 68,130,122 of the Act of 1890 are pari materia with the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989. In that case, their Lordships categorically held that the burden of proof lies on the Railway Administration to establish that the passenger was not a bona fide passenger. Although the said case arose under the Railways Act, 1890 but Sections 68,130,122 of the Act of 1890 are pari materia with the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989. In that case, their Lordships categorically held that the burden of proof lies on the Railway Administration to establish that the passenger was not a bona fide passenger. Moreover, the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Smt. Bhagwani Girl v. Union of India, 2004(4) WLC 573 , relying upon the judgment in Raj Kumari (supra) case and has categorically held that it is for the Railways to establish that a passenger was not a bona fide passenger, Considering the fact that a Division Bench of this Court has answered the issue before us, any contrary view taken by another High Court automatically becomes irrelevant. After all, under judicial discipline, the single Bench is bound by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the burden of proof to establish that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger lies on the Railway Administration. 15. In the present case at hand. Anil Kumar Gupta had submitted his affidavit wherein he had clearly stated that he had accompanied Devendra Kumar Gupta, the deceased, to the railway station and had bought a ticket for him and had given the ticket to him prior to his boarding the train. Therefore there is no reason to doubt the veracity of his testimony. The learned Tribunal had also noted in its impugned order that the Railway has not produced any evidence to prove that the deceased was a ticket-less traveler. Hence, the Railway Administration has not discharged the burden which was upon it. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has validly directed the Railway to pay the compensation. 16. The learned Counsel for the appellant has also contended that the case does not fall under the definition of “untoward incident” as defined in Section 123(c) of the Act. But Section 123(c) of the Act clearly defines the expression as “an accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers”. In the present case, the claimant No. 1, Hari Narayan Gupta, the father of the deceased, had clearly stated that one Manoj Jain had informed him that someone had fallen from the train and it could be his missing son. In the present case, the claimant No. 1, Hari Narayan Gupta, the father of the deceased, had clearly stated that one Manoj Jain had informed him that someone had fallen from the train and it could be his missing son. When inquiries were made, it was discovered that a body had been found near Sumergan Mandi (Indergarh) in a badly crushed and cut condition. The said body was identified by Hari Narayan and by other relatives to be that of Devendra Kumar Gupta. Certain receipts and papers were also discovered from the body to indicate that the body was of Devendra Kumar Gupta. The Railway Administration has not led any evidence to prove that the deceased had died because of suicide or attempt to commit suicide, or as a result of self-inflicted injuries, or by his own criminal act, or that the death was caused by any natural means or medical or surgical treatment. Thus the appellant cannot be given the benefit of five exceptions mentioned in Section 124A of the Act. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly concluded that the case falls under the definition of “untoward incident” as contained in Section 123(c) (2) of the Act.” 13. For the reasons and discussions aforesaid and in view of the opinion of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Naryan Gupta (supra), the appeal instituted on behalf of the appellant is devoid of any substance and lacks in merit, and therefore, deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. No costs.