JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, against the order dated 20.07.2018 passed in O.A.(II) U.No.42/2015 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai.) 1. The judgment dated 20.07.2018 passed in O.A.(II) U.No.42/2015 is under challenge in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The claimants are the appellants. The Claim Petition was filed under Section 16 of the Railways Act, seeking compensation based on the narration of facts, which reads as under: “The deceased was a 12th student at MCC School Chetpet, Chennai. On 08.11.2013, the deceased along with his friend Jahir informed his parents that he is going school by train and came to Egmore Railway Station and travelled in EMU train towards Egmore to Tambaram, with valid season ticket. While the train came in between Egmore to Chetpet Railway Stations due to heavy crowd, Sped, Jerk and Jolt of the train, the deceased unexpectedly fell down from the running train in between Egmore to Chetpet Railway Stations near SDAV Foot Ball Ground and sustained severe head injury with help of the co-passengers his friend Jahir stop the train and brought the deceased by another EMU train and admitted in GH but without any improvement, he died on 13.11.2013. In the Postmortem Certificate, Tutor in Forensic Medicine, Madras Medical College, Chennai-3, had certified that “The deceased would appear to have died of effects of the Head Injury”. The claimants crave leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal to read the Postmortem Certificate as part and parcel of this claim petition. Further, the FIR, Inquest Report and the Final Report clearly reveal that the death of the deceased is due to unexpected fall from the running train and hence it is an untoward Railway Incident and there are no other reasons to suspect the death of the deceased.” 3. The respondent/Railways contested the matter before the Railways Tribunal. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues and formed an opinion that there is no proof that the boy had any ticket during the relevant point of time that could qualify him as a passenger. Even at the time of cross examination, suggestion has been given that the deceased was travelling without ticket. Based on on this factum, the Tribunal arrived a conclusion that the appellants had not established an untoward incident. Even at the time of cross examination, suggestion has been given that the deceased was travelling without ticket. Based on on this factum, the Tribunal arrived a conclusion that the appellants had not established an untoward incident. In view of the fact that the untoward incident was not established, the application itself was dismissed by the Tribunal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants made a submission that the FIR, Inquest Report and the DRMs report and the relevant facts and circumstances were not considered by the Tribunal and it is a case, where the deceased died due to the hit in a lamp post. Thus, the untoward incident occurred and non-retrieval of travel ticket alone cannot be a ground to reject the application. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/Railways disputed the said contention by the stating that onus lies on the claimants, who approached the Tribunal for compensation. Once the untoward incident was not established, the Tribunal is right in rejecting the application. When the alleged incident occurred due to the negligence and carelessness on the part of the deceased, there is no reason to consider the case for grant of compensation. It is a self-inflicted injury, which is an exclusion clause under Section 124-A proviso of the Railways Act. Thus, the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the appeal is to be dismissed. 6. Let us consider the documents, more specifically, the DRM Report dated 10.07.2015. The DRM Report categorically reveals that the investigation of the case was conducted under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules 2003. The deceased person namely Mohammed Javid, aged about 18 years, S/o.Jahir Hussin, No.30 Nagappa Muthali Street, Pudupet, Chennai-2, while travelling from Egmore to Chetpet in EMU Train on 08.11.2013 at foot board of the train, fell down at KM No.5/7 in between MSC-MS Railway Station and got head injury and succumbed to the injury on 13.11.2013 at GH, Chennai. The incident was occurred due to the carelessness and negligence on the part of the deceased person. Moreover, the applicant Smt.Rejula (mother of the deceased) and her counsel did not produce any ticket, pass or any travelling authority to prove the deceased was a bonafide passenger during the journey. 7. The incident was occurred due to the carelessness and negligence on the part of the deceased person. Moreover, the applicant Smt.Rejula (mother of the deceased) and her counsel did not produce any ticket, pass or any travelling authority to prove the deceased was a bonafide passenger during the journey. 7. The Inquest Report dated 13.11.2013, filed by the Police, also reveals that on examination of witnesses, and the inspection of the occurrence spot, the injury on the deceased's body was clear that the deceased in order to go to school, he travelled in EMU train and accidently fell down from the running train and sustained head injury, admitted for medical treatment at Government General Hospital and died. The Postmortem Report also reveals that there was a grievous head injury. 8. This Court is of the considered opinion that the travel in a train by the deceased was established. However, the travel ticket was not retrieved. It was found that the untoward incident due to fallen down from a running train and the deceased sustained head injury. Thus, an untoward incident in the Railway premises was established and the question arises, non-retrieval or non-production of a travel ticket would dis-entitle the claimants from getting compensation under the Railways Act. 9. This Court is of the considered opinion that once the untoward incident is established through Inquest Report, DRM Report and other connected records, then non-availability of a travel ticket alone cannot be a ground to reject the application. There is a possibility of missing of a travel ticket due to various circumstances. While fallen down from a running train, ticket could have lost. The deceased was taken to the Government General Hospital through Ambulance and after death, Postmortem was conducted. Under those circumstances, the relatives or other persons would not be in a position to trace out the travel ticket and it may not be practically possible. If at all, the travel ticket was retrieved by the police, while conducting investigation, it may be possible for production of such ticket and not otherwise. Equally, it is possible for the passenger, would have travelled without a valid travel ticket. When both circumstances are possible, then the Court has to adopt a liberal interpretation, in view of the fact that the grant of compensation is a welfare measure under the welfare legislation. Equally, it is possible for the passenger, would have travelled without a valid travel ticket. When both circumstances are possible, then the Court has to adopt a liberal interpretation, in view of the fact that the grant of compensation is a welfare measure under the welfare legislation. Whenever a doubt regarding the valid travel ticket arises, the burden of proof is shifted on the Railways to establish that the deceased / injured was not a bonafide passenger. The burden cannot be shifted on the claimants. Thus, in the present case, the Railways could not able to establish that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. Contrarily, they took advantage of the position that the deceased was not having any valid travel ticket, arrived a conclusion that he is not a bonafide passenger. Such a decision would be opposed to the principles of liberal interpretation to be adopted with reference to the welfare legislations. In the present case, when the deceased was admittedly travelling in a train and fallen down from a running train, sustained injuries and died, then mere non-availability of a travel ticket cannot be a ground to deny compensation to the victims. 10. That apart, the learned counsel for the respondent/Railways reiterated that it is not only the case of non-availability of ticket, the deceased was hit in a lamp post on account of his own negligence and carelessness. Therefore, it is a self-inflicted injury under Section 124- A(b) of the Railways Act. This Court has considered these aspects on several occasions and in respect of the exclusion clauses, during peak hours, if there is a hit in a lamp post, then it is to be construed that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the Railway authorities in admitting large number of passengers over and above the capacity in the Railway coaches. The effective control of passengers in accordance with the capacity of coaches are not monitored. In the present case, the accident occurred at 8.15 a.m, which is a peak hour. This apart, there is no intention on the part of the deceased and for the purpose of invoking the exclusion clause, the intention / mens rea is to be established. In the absence of any intention, the question of self-infliction would not arise at all. The very definition for self-infliction impliedly contemplates that there must be an intention. This apart, there is no intention on the part of the deceased and for the purpose of invoking the exclusion clause, the intention / mens rea is to be established. In the absence of any intention, the question of self-infliction would not arise at all. The very definition for self-infliction impliedly contemplates that there must be an intention. Mere carelessness or negligence cannot be construed as an intention for the purpose of imposing self-inflicted injuries. Thus, the carelessness prevails on many occasions and carelessness and negligence are to be construed as human errors on many occasions and more specifically, without any intention. Thus, if any intention on the part of the deceased / injured is established, then alone, the exclusion clause of self-inflicted injury can be invoked and mere carelessness or negligence would not be a ground to invoke the exclusion clause of self-inflicted injury. 11. This being the factum established, the Railway Tribunal has not considered these aspects and rejected the application, merely on the ground that the untoward incident has not occurred. Thus, the judgment dated 20.07.2018 passed in O.A.(II) U.No.42/2015 is set aside and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.701 of 2019 stands allowed. The appellants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of passing of the Award. The respondent / Railways is directed to deposit the award amount with accrued interest before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the appellants / parents are permitted to withdraw the said award amount, each half share, by filing an appropriate application and the payments are to be made through RTGS. No costs.