JUDGMENT Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J. - This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the award dated 03.08.2009 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in OA-II/60/03, whereby learned Tribunal rejected the application filed by late Rekahan Lal (who has died during the pendency of this Msc. Appeal) and Smt.Ramkali appellant no.1 (who are the parents of the deceased Rajesh Shreevastav) for getting compensation on account of the death of their son Rajesh Shrivastava in a rail accident. 2. Brief facts of the case are that late Rekhan Lal and Smt. Ramkali appellant no.1 filed an application under Section 16 of Railway Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") before the Railway Claims Tribunal Bhopal for getting compensation on account of the death of their son Rajesh Shrivastava averring that their son deceased Rajesh Shrivastava had gone to Manikpur from Satan. When he was returning from Manikpur to Satna and was travelling in a general compartment of train on a valid 2nd class ticket, he fell down from the train between Km. No.1181/ 08 and home signal, dragged into wheels of the train, crushed and died at the place of occurrence. Deputy Station Master, Satna sent a memo at about 10 am on 16.10.2002 to GRP, Satna regarding the alleged incident. On that GRP Satna registered inquest No.41/02 and inquired about the matter. Police after the inquiry found that the deceased Rajesh Shrivastava died due to falling from the train. Applicants are the parents of the deceased and depend on the deceased. In the course of the accident, the train ticket was lost, therefore, it could not be produced before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the claimants filed their claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/ (Rupees four lakhs only) for the death of their son Rajesh Shreevastav. 3. Respondent Railway in reply opposed the prayer and pleaded that claimants have not mentioned the number and name of the train by which the deceased was travelling and fell down. The deceased was not a bona fide passenger and alleged death was not caused in any untoward incident as defined under Section 123(C) (2) read with section 124 A of Railways Act 1989 and prayed for rejection of the claim. 4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, the Rekhan Lal was examined as A.W.1 and 6 documents, Exs. 4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, the Rekhan Lal was examined as A.W.1 and 6 documents, Exs. A-1 to A-6 were marked. The respondent did not produce any evidence in rebuttal. 5. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the case of both the parties, dismissed the claim petition stating that the claimants have not produced the train ticket and failed to establish that the victim was a bona fide passenger. However, the Tribunal found proved that death was caused in any untoward incident. The respondent has failed to prove that the accident was not unexpected and caused due to the reason mentioned in Sub Section (a) to (c) of Section 124A of the Railways Act 1989. 6. Ms Aparna Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant submitted that non-production of the train ticket is not fatal to the case of the appellant and that the burden of proof lies on the respondent-Railway to establish that the victim was not a bona fide passenger. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court passed in the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi, 2019 3 SCC 572 . 7. This court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the learned counsel of the appellant. It appears from the perusal of the record of the Tribunal that the Tribunal found proved that the death of Rajesh Shrivastav was caused in any untoward incident. The respondent has failed to prove that the accident was not unexpected and caused due to the reason mentioned in Sub Section (a) to (c) of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. But only on the basis that the train ticket was not produced in evidence and no ticket was found in possession of the deceased, held that the deceased was not the bonafide passenger. So the only question involved in the present appeal is whether the non-production of the Railway ticket is fatal to the case of the claimants and the claimants have failed to establish that the victim was a bona fide passenger. 8. In this regard Apex court in the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi, 2019 3 SCC 572 relied upon by the learned counsel of the appellant held:- "29. 8. In this regard Apex court in the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi, 2019 3 SCC 572 relied upon by the learned counsel of the appellant held:- "29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of a ticket with such injured or deceased will not negate the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly." 9. If we examined the present case in the light of above mentioned pronouncement of the Apex Court in this case also parents of the deceasedRajesh laid the claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal on the ground that the deceased-Rajesh, while travelling in a train from Manikpur to Satna and was travelling in a general compartment of train on a valid 2nd class ticket, fell down from the train between Km. No.1181/ 08 and home signal on 16.10.2002, as a result, he sustained injuries on his head and both legs and died on the spot after falling down. Upon consideration of the evidence let in by the claimants, both oral and documentary, more particularly, Ex.A1- inquest report and final report, the Tribunal categorically held that the deceased, while travelling by train from Manikpur to Satna fell down from the train between Km. No.1181/ 08 and home signal on 16.10.2002, sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot and that the police have concluded the case as accidental death and accordingly closed their case. The Tribunal also held that the respondent has not adduced any evidence to establish that the incident would not come under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 and the respondent is not liable under Section 124A of the said Act. The Tribunal also held that the respondent has not adduced any evidence to establish that the incident would not come under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 and the respondent is not liable under Section 124A of the said Act. After holding so, the Tribunal has clearly erred in dismissing the claim petition only on the grounds that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger because the train ticket was not produced in evidence and no ticket was found in possession of the deceased. The claimants had a specific case pleaded that the deceased was holding a journey ticket, but the same was lost in the accident. Even in the inquest report Ex.A-1, it is mentioned that train tickets dated 26/09/2002 from Jabalpur to Satna, dated 06/10/2002 from Katni to Jabalpur and dated 14/10/2002 from Satna to Manikpur were found in the pocket of the pant which was worn by the deceased at the time of accident, which also show that deceased used to travel on valid train ticket and on 14/10/2002 he went to Manikpur from Satana. This fact also corroborates the statement of Rekhanlal father of the deceased that on 16/10/2002 he was returning from Manikpur to Satna. The inquest report filed by the Railway Police, Satna in inquest No.41/2002 under Section 174 Cr.P.C., dated 16.10.2002 itself clearly revealed that the deceased-Rajesh, while travelling in an Up-train had fallen down from the train, sustained grievous injuries in his head and legs and died on the spot and that there were no other reasons for his death. In these circumstances, the burden lies upon the Respondent- Railways to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. In the considered opinion of this court that in these circumstances the Tribunal committed a mistake in holding that claimants have failed to prove that deceased Rajesh was the bonafide passenger only on the ground, that the train ticket was not produced in evidence and no ticket was found in possession of the deceased. The claimants had a specific case pleaded that the deceased was holding a journey ticket, but the same was lost in the accident. The burden was on the Railways to prove that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger and non-production of Railway ticket is not fatal to the case of the claimants. The claimants had a specific case pleaded that the deceased was holding a journey ticket, but the same was lost in the accident. The burden was on the Railways to prove that the deceased is not a bona fide passenger and non-production of Railway ticket is not fatal to the case of the claimants. Therefore, the Tribunal should not have dismissed the petition on that ground. This court holds that in the present case, facts and circumstances prima facie indicate that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, who lost his life in the railway accident. 10. In these circumstances, the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, in OA-II/60/03 is set aside and the case is remitted back to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench for fixing the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal is directed to decide the quantum of compensation payable to the appellant afresh and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With these observations, the Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. Office is directed to send the record of OA-II/60/03 to Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal along with the copy of this order.