JUDGMENT : (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1989 to set aside the order dated 03.08.2017 passed by the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chennai Beach in O.A.(II-U) 51/2017 and grant an award for the statutory compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- ( vide Gazaette Notification with effect from 01.01-2017) together with interest at 12% p.a.) 1. This C.M.A has been filed against the Judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal, Chennai Beach in OA.(II U)51/2017 raising various grounds. 2. The case of the appellant is that the injured/claimant who was proceeding in a passenger train from Tiruvannamalai to Tirupati holding a II class ticket No: 310170703 (Ex.A-4) accidentally fell down when the train was proceeding at Kaniyambadi Railway station and he filed a claim petition for the said accident under Sections 123(c) (2), 124-A and 125 of Railways Act, 1989 claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The appellant/claimant would contend that the Tribunal had rejected the claim on the ground that the appellant was not a bonafide passenger, despite the fact that attested copy of the ticket has been filed and issuance of ticket has been admitted by the Railways administration. They also raised the ground that the Inquest report discarded the final report drawn by the Investigating authority which was marked as exhibit and the same was not considered by the Railways Tribunal and as per the enquiry report of the General Railway police, while re-boarding the train at Kaniyambadi Railway Station, the injured had fallen down and the message given by the Station master had also confirmed the same. The ticket was produced before the Inspecting officer and the same has been filed along with the claim petition and the respondent admitted the same by filing a copy as an annexure to the Divisional Railway Manager’s report. When the Tribunal has relied on the statements recorded by the station master, but the station master was not examined, but during enquiry he had submitted that the appellant was smelling alcohol, but the same was not taken as a defense in the reply statement or in evidence. 4. The Tribunal after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the application filed by the claimant and therefore, he preferred this appeal before this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents placed on record. 6. 4. The Tribunal after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the application filed by the claimant and therefore, he preferred this appeal before this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents placed on record. 6. It would be seen from records that the appellant has admittedly filed the ticket and it is the burden of proof on the side of the railways to prove that the appellant is not a bonafide passenger and the same was not done by the Respondent/Railways. The observation made by the Tribunal, after admitting the fact that the ticket which was filed was issued 15 minutes before the schedule of train and thereafter, raising the question that 2 persons belonging to the same family were travelled, but only one ticket was produced and the said ticket was taken for the victim of the mother, is erroneous. 7. It was also admitted by the respondent/railway department that, the ticket has been issued at 17:49 hours before the scheduled departure of train on 05.03.2017. When the said fact was admitted by the respondent/Railway Department, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim petition. 8. The respondent has submitted that it is true that the station master at Kanniyambadi had issued a message stating that one person named Saravanan aged 34 years has fallen down from the train No:56884 Pass at KN-138/900 to 139/000 at Kaniyambadi Railway Station. Both his legs were cut but the passenger is in alive condition and he has been sent to Adukamparam Government Hospital by 108 Ambulance. Neither any ticket nor any valuables was found from him and he is in drowsing condition. 9. According to the enquiry report, it was reflected that the applicant who is travelling with his mother got alighted at Kanniyambadi Railway Station for reasons known to him, when the train started moving the station he attempted to board the train, which has gained speed, and in this process, he slipped and fell down from moving train. His mother reported this accident to SM/Vellore Cantonment, (next station)who in turn informed about this accident to SM/Kaniyambadi and she has stated that the injured was in a drowsy condition. Hence the incident has happened only due to the mischievous act of the applicant. 10. His mother reported this accident to SM/Vellore Cantonment, (next station)who in turn informed about this accident to SM/Kaniyambadi and she has stated that the injured was in a drowsy condition. Hence the incident has happened only due to the mischievous act of the applicant. 10. The case of the claimant is that due to the jerk and jolt, he accidentally fallen down in the Katpadi Railway Station. His mother in her evidence stated that when her son Saravanan at Kaniyambadi Railway Station got down to fetch water from a water tap available on the platform. By that time, he could return to the coach, the train started moving, hence he slipped and fell down in the track, she screamed and tried to stop the train by pulling the alarm chain but the train did not stop. As the train stopped at the next station she got down and walked about 1.5 hours on the track in the night and finally reached Kaniyambadi and she came to know that her son Saravanan with crush injuries on his legs was shifted by 108 Ambulance to Government Hospital, Adukkamparai, Vellore for treatment. 11. One person named M.Chitti babu aged 29, had stated during enquiry on 08.06.2017 that 3 days ago i.e on 05.03.2017 when working in SCP/KNIB station, after striking the bell for starting of the train, he exchanged signal from the middle of the platform between the guard and Loco Pilot of the train. He also stated that after receiving information from SM/VLR, some passengers who were arrived by the train at VLR told him that a male person while attempted to board the moving train at Kaniyambadi railway station fell down on the Katpadi end at Kaniyabadi platform. Immediately he and the station master checked the platform and found one male identified as Saravanan, aged 34 has fallen down and both his legs were crushed and amputated. 12. It was submitted by the Railway police, Katpadi that on 06.03.2017 about 1:45 hours, Loganathan, Sub Inspector received a written accidental fallen message from the station master. 13. Based on the above stated evidence the Tribunal has rejected the claim on the ground that Chitti Babu on enquiry stated he smelt alcohol from the injured and 108 Ambulance staff also confirmed the said statement. The Railways had not further investigated the issue by examining the Doctor who had treated him. 14. 13. Based on the above stated evidence the Tribunal has rejected the claim on the ground that Chitti Babu on enquiry stated he smelt alcohol from the injured and 108 Ambulance staff also confirmed the said statement. The Railways had not further investigated the issue by examining the Doctor who had treated him. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a Judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India in C.A.No.6898 of 2002 in the case of Union of India Vs Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar wherein it was stated that Section 2 (29) of the Railways Act defines ‘passenger’ to mean a person traveling with a valid pass or ticket. Section 123(c) of the Railways Act defines ‘untoward incident’ to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Section124-A of the Railways Act with which we are concerned states: “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 Dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding any-thing 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:” 15. In the above said Judgment the said appeal filed by the Union of India against the Judgment of Kerala High Court has been dismissed and the Judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 25.06.2011, wherein the claim petition filed for the death of a passenger in train accident and the Kerala High Court has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- with 12% interest as compensation to the deceased was confirmed. 16. In fact, under similar circumstances, this Court in the case of The Union of India owning Southern Railway by its General Manager, Chennai Vs. G. Jayalakshmi and others, 2012 (3) CTC 741 , while considering an identical issue, has held as follows:- 15. This Court in similar circumstances in the case of S. Poonkodi and others Vs. The Union of India, Southern Railway, CDJ 2007 MHC 3784, observed as hereunder:- 16....Moreover, if the deceased had travelled as a ticketless traveller, one would normally expect the Railway Authorities to have detected such ticketless travelling. When a person dies in an accident by falling down from train, it is not possible for the legal representatives to produce the ticket or valid authority to travel in the train. Depending upon the facts and circumstances of a given case, the Tribunal/the Appellate Court infer about the deceased being a bona fide passenger. 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. 17. Considering the above Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court the Inquest report, which clearly reveals the fact that a person named Saravanan was fallen down and both the legs were cut and he was sent to Adukamparai G.H by Ambulance from Kanniyambadi Railway Station, and as per the statutory provisions, compensation is payable for death or injury of a passenger. The burden was on the Railway Administration to prove that the passenger was not a bonafide passenger. There is no materials to prove that the appellant had travelled without purchasing a ticket and that he is a unauthorised passenger. That apart, the Railway Department’s contention, i.e mother and son had travelled one ticket was produced and the presumption that they purchased only one ticket was not proved, whether the ticket checker has examined the passengers to prove that either mother or son travelled without ticket. That apart, the Railway Department’s contention, i.e mother and son had travelled one ticket was produced and the presumption that they purchased only one ticket was not proved, whether the ticket checker has examined the passengers to prove that either mother or son travelled without ticket. If the Railway authorities are so vigilant, they ought to have produced evidence to show that only one ticket was issued in the said station where the claimant started her journey. With regard to the plea that the claimant was in a drowsiness condition due to intoxication. Hence, he had fallen down it is to be noted that only after getting information from the next station that a person had fallen down, the station master had gone to the spot and found out that the claimant had fallen down, his legs got crushed, amputated, therefore blood flown from his body would have been ozzed out and hence he would have been in a drowsiness condition. In the absence of any other evidence to show that the claimant was influence of alcohol, the objection of the Railway Authorities is rejected. In those days in express train, there is no sale of eatables, especially water, only in platform, water will be available and passengers used to get down and fetch water. 18. It is an benevolent act and the respondent has to compensate the appellant for the untoward incident happened in the plat form of Kanniyambadi Railway Station, which would be always busy and crowded. On many cases, this Court has also held that mere non recovery of a valid ticket will not make a person as a ‘trespasser’. In the present case, when the incident had taken place inside the platform, it is an ‘untoward incident’ and the findings and the order of the Tribunal is erroneous and liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. 19. In fine, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the respondent is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- along with 6.5% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realisation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount. No costs.