JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri Abhinay Y.T, learned counsel for the appellant. Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 is absent. 2. The appellant has challenged the judgment dtd. 23/8/2013 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench. The facts are as below:- 3. The respondents are the claimants being the parents of the deceased namely Kavitha. It is their case that Kavitha was traveling from Malkhed to Sedam in Train No. 359 on 2/9/2008. She was a bona fide purchaser as she had purchased a ticket. On the way, accidentally she fell down from the moving train because of a sudden jerk and jolt, sustained grievous multiple injuries and at last succumbed to them. The Tribunal after holding enquiry granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000.00 with interest at 6% from 26/8/2009, i.e., from the date of application till the date of judgment and 9% thereafter till realization. 4. Sri Abhinay Y.T. submits that the Tribunal has not considered the defence put forward by the appellant. The deceased did not possess railway ticket and therefore she was not a bona fide purchaser. She came under the wheels of the train when she was crossing the track and thus the accident occurred. The Tribunal has lost sight of all these aspects of the matter for allowing the claim petition. Therefore it is his submission that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. I have gone through the entire records and also the evidence. It is an admitted fact that the deceased did not possess railway ticket, but the father of the deceased who adduced evidence as AW-I stated on oath that his daughter had purchased a ticket and it was lost when she fell down from the moving train. The actual defence put forward by the appellant was that the deceased might have committed suicide by coming in contact with unknown running train or she might have been murdered and her dead body might have been kept on the track to make it believe that it was accidental death due to fall from the moving train. If the post mortem report is perused, the possibility of these two defences can be ruled out. If the deceased had committed suicide, the body should have been cut into two halves or even if she had been murdered and the body was kept on the railway track, then also the body should have been cut into two pieces. If the post mortem report is perused, the possibility of these two defences can be ruled out. If the deceased had committed suicide, the body should have been cut into two halves or even if she had been murdered and the body was kept on the railway track, then also the body should have been cut into two pieces. But the post mortem report shows multiple injuries which could happen only when a person falls from a moving train. This probability cannot be ruled out. The Tribunal has held that because of rush in the train, she might be sitting near the door and might have fallen down because of a jolt and jerk. On facts, the Tribunal has arrived at a right conclusion which cannot be interfered with. 6. So far as not possessing the train ticket, AW-I has clearly stated that his daughter was traveling from Malkhed to Sedam, but owing to accident, ticket might have been lost. The Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA vs RINA DEVI [ (2019) 3 SCC 572 ] has held that mere absence of ticket with injured or deceased will not negative the claim for compensation. It is also held that though the initial burden is on the claimant to prove that the injured or the deceased was a bona fide purchaser, it can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and then onus will shift on the railways to rebut it. It is held by the Tribunal that the Railways failed to discharge its onus once the claimant filed his affidavit stating that the ticket was lost. In this view, the Tribunal has taken the correct view to grant compensation in the absence of ticket. I do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the Tribunal. Hence, appeal is dismissed.