JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, against the order dated 01.03.2018, passed in O.A.(II) UNo:103/2017 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai.) 1. The judgment dated 01.03.2018 passed in O.A.(II)U No:103/2017 is under challenge in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The claimant is the appellant. The claimant filed an application under Section 16 of the Railways Act, seeking compensation based on the narration of facts, which reads as under: “On 12.08.2013, the deceased informed her mother that she is going for shopping to purchase dresses and study material at Mambalam & Parrys Corner, and she came to Pallavaram Railway Station and procured a 2nd class ordinary return ticket (vide EMU Ticket No.48512) to travel from Pallavaram to Chennai Beach and she travelled in a EMU Train running towards Chennai Beach the train was heavy crowded because of peak hours. While the train came in between Pazhavanthangal – St.Thomas Mount Railway Stations due to stampede of passengers, Jerk and Jolt of the train, she accidentally fell down from the running train and sustained head injuries and struggled for life, it is noticed by the one passenger of the same train namely Prabhu admitted her in a private hospital Shri Balaji Hospital at Guindy for treatment. On 15.08.2013, she was admitted in Government Rajiv Gandhi Hospital for further treatment but without any improvement of medical treatment she died on 19.08.2013. In the Postmortem Certificate, Asst Professor, Institute of Forensic Medicine, Madras Medical College, Chennai-3, had certified that “The deceased would appear to have died of effects of 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. Investigation was conducted by the Railway Police. FIR registered and Inquest Report submitted. The Police filed a final report also. The Tribunal with reference to the documents and evidences, adjudicated the issues and formed an opinion that the ticket recovered from the deceased was not a valid authority to travel. Investigation was conducted by the Railway Police. FIR registered and Inquest Report submitted. The Police filed a final report also. The Tribunal with reference to the documents and evidences, adjudicated the issues and formed an opinion that the ticket recovered from the deceased was not a valid authority to travel. On verification, it was found that the particular ticket was no doubt issued by Pallavaram Station, but it was issued on 06.08.2013 and the incident having taken place on 12.08.2013 could not afforded to her a valid authority to issue the same ticket, which was purchased on 06.08.2013. Since the genuineness of the ticket was ascertained and the Tribunal found that the ticket retrieved from the deceased was not a valid ticket, arrived a conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger within the definition of Section 2(29) of the Railways Act and therefore, the application was rejected. 4. The Railway Tribunal has not discussed about the other aspects of the matter. Once the travel ticket was not produced, and the ticket produced was found to be not genuine, the Tribunal concluded that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. However, this Court has gone through the DRM’s Report, which is authenticated one, filed by the respondent/Railways, after conducting a detailed enquiry about the untoward incident. The Station Master provided an information about the untoward incident on 12.08.2013. The Inquest Report filed by the Police reveals that the deceased due to crowd, fallen down from a running train and sustained injuries and died. 5. The Inquest report reveals that the deceased, who travelled in local EMU train from Pallavaram to Chennai Beach and due to crowd, unexpectedly fallen down from the train, sustained injury and met with an accident. 6. The Final Report field by the Sub-Inspector of Railway Police Station, Egmore also reveals that the deceased accidentally died due to fallen down. Importantly, the DRM's report deals with the facts and the manner, in which, the investigations were conducted. This Court has to consider the Discussion of evidence collected by the RPF, which was considered by the IPF/STM in his report. Importantly, the DRM's report deals with the facts and the manner, in which, the investigations were conducted. This Court has to consider the Discussion of evidence collected by the RPF, which was considered by the IPF/STM in his report. The Discussion of evidence collected by the RPF reads as under: “The FIR, Inquest Report, Postmortem report, copy of the memo of the SM/STM and the statement of Sri.M.C.Sampath Kumar ASI/RPF corroborated the fact that on 12.08.2013 while deceased Miss.Jenifar age 20 yrs Puthiya Periya Palayam, Amman koil street, PV Chennai-43, travelling from Pallavaram to Mambalam by EMU train No.40102, Ex.TBM to MSB fell down from running train at 16.25 hrs at KM No.18/2 in between Palavanthangal and St.Thomas Mount Railway Station and sustained head injury, taken to Balaji Private Hospital, Guindy, Chennai, later referred to GH/Chennai on 15.08.2013, where she was died at 02.45 hrs on 19.08.2013. In the postmortem certificate, Assistant Professor Sri.Dr.D.Vedhanayagam Certified that the deceased would appear to have died of effects of head injury. There was no witness to prove the SM/STM report that the deceased was jumping from running train. SMR/TBM issued a letter stating that records/documents of EMU train No.40102 Ex.TBM to MSB dated 12.08.2013 not available at SMR/TBM office. On 12.08.2013, no ticket or any other travelling authority was found with the deceased person. As per the claim application and the report of GRP/MS the deceased was holding a II Class railway ticket No.48512. However, the genuine of this ticket was verified and Commercial Supervisor, Southern Railway, Pallavaram issued Certificate that the II Class ordinary return ticket No.48512 Ex.PV to MSB was issued at Pallavaram Booking Office on 06.08.2013. This clearly shows that the mentioned ticket is not a valid ticket for travelling on 12.08.2013. 7. The conclusion of the DRM's report reveals the following opinion, which reads as follows: 13. Conclusion: From the above, it is concluded that, on 12.08.2013, while the deceased by name Miss. Jenifar age 20 yrs Puthiya Periya Palayam, Amman Koil street, PV Chennai-43, travelling from Pallavaram to Mambalam by EMU train No.40102, Ex.TBM to MSB fell down from running train at 16.25 hrs at KM No.18/2 in between Palavanthangal and St.Thomas Mount Railway Station and sustained head injury, taken to Balaji Private Hospital, Guindy, Chennai, later referred to GH/Chennai on 15.08.2013, where she was died at 02.45 hrs on 19.08.2013. The incident was occurred due to carelessness and negligence on the part of the deceased person since she was travelling on the doorways of the train. Moreover, it is proved that the deceased person was not a bonafide passenger. Therefore, the claim application submitted by Smt.Ramalakshmi has no merit for consideration.” 8. The DRM Report categorically states that the deceased died at 02.45 hrs on 19.08.2013. The incident was occurred due to carelessness and negligence on the part of the deceased person since she was travelling on the doorways of the train. Further, it was found that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and valid travel ticket was not retrieved. 9. Three factors are found in the DRM's Report. The untoward incident was established. The death occurred on 19.08.2013. Due to injuries sustained, while fallen down from a running train on 15.08.2013. 10. Thus, the untoward incident was established and the deceased sustained injuries due to her carelessness and negligence. Question arises, mere carelessness or negligence would dis-entitle the claimants from getting compensation under the welfare legislation. The carelessness and negligence along with the intention if established, then alone, the Exclusion clause under Sectin 124(A)(b) shall be invoked and not otherwise. 11. In other words, to establish exclusion clause as contemplated under the Act, an intention on the part of the deceased / injured is to be established. Exclusion clauses are criminal acts. All the exclusion clauses as contemplated are relatable to criminal acts of the injured / deceased. Thus, in case of Suicide, or an attempt to Suicide or selfinflicted injury, the intention / mens rea is to be established. In the absence of intention, mere carelessness or negligence would not be a ground to reject the application for grant of compensation. Carelessness or negligence is a common phenomena and more specifically, in our country, where huge population are travelling in Electric Trains. If mere carelessness attributed against the passengers, then the Court is bound to consider the contributory negligence on the part of the Railways in protecting the passengers and regulating the activities in running trains. Negligence cannot be fixed against the passengers alone. All factors and the prevailing situation and the other practical difficulties for the passengers are to be considered in the event of untoward incident. Negligence cannot be fixed against the passengers alone. All factors and the prevailing situation and the other practical difficulties for the passengers are to be considered in the event of untoward incident. If claim petition for compensation is rejected merely on the ground that fallen down from a train occurred due to the carelessness of the passenger, then the Court has to consider whether the contributory negligence also is the reason for fallen down from a running train. The facilities to be provided to the passengers and the safety measures prevailing in Railway coaches are also factors to be considered and such complex nature of prevailing situation in our great Nation is also contributing for such untoward incident. One cannot expect, in a country like India, where 100% passengers will be careful and prudent. When there is a scope for accident in the event of carelessness, contributory negligence or non-availability of adequate safety measures are also to be taken note of by the Courts, while granting compensation, which is a welfare scheme for the benefit of the family, who lost their near and dear and sometimes, the sole breadwinner of the family. All these factors cannot be brushed aside. In the present case, the untoward incident was established. Travel in a train by the deceased was established. The travel ticket was found to be invalid. Mere non-availability of the travel ticket is not a ground to reject the claim Petition. In the present case, the enquiry conducted by the Railways itself, says that the incident occurred due to the carelessness and negligence on the part of the deceased. 12. 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 she 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. 13. Contrarily, they took advantage of the position that the deceased was not having any valid travel ticket, arrived a conclusion that she 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. 13. In view of the facts and circumstances, the judgment dated 01.03.2018, passed in O.A.(II) U No:103/2017 is set aside and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.2063 of 2019 stands allowed. The appellant is 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 appellant is permitted to withdraw the said award amount by filing an appropriate application and the payments are to be made through RTGS. No costs.