JUDGMENT : This is a claimant's appeal, arising out of a judgment and order dated 16.09.2013, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow rejecting the claim for compensation on account of injuries sustained in an untoward incident. 2. Ajay Kumar, the sole appellant here, who preferred the application for compensation before the Tribunal, said in his application, raising the claim, that he was travelling on a second class general ticket on board the Farakka Express on March 18, 2007 from Delhi to Kanpur. When the train was passing through the Govindpuri Railway Station, there was a sudden ''jerk and jolt' in its movement, that led the appellant to be thrown off board. In consequence, the appellant was grievously injured. He was admitted to the care of the Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital, Kanpur, where he underwent surgery of amputation closure. In consequence of the accident, the appellant lost his journey ticket. Along with the claim application, the appellant has submitted photostat copies of documents that include the discharge slip from the G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur, Lala Lajpat Rai and Associated Hospital, Kanpur, a copy of his ration card and a copy of the permanent disability certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur Dehat, besides some papers relating to the treatment received by the applicant as an out-patient at the G.S.V.M. Medical College, Lala Lajpat Rai and Associated Hospital. The claimant prayed that he may be granted compensation in the sum of Rs. 4 lacs with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of incident. 3. The respondent-Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railways, filed a written statement, refuting the appellant's claim. The written statement was filed on 27.11.2007. The respondent took a stand that the appellant was neither a passenger on board the Farakka Express nor did he suffer a fall from the train on 13.03.2007 near Govindpuri Railway Station. There are some additional pleas set out in the written statement and this Court must remark that the written statement is so carelessly drafted that in paragraph no. 8 thereof, it is said that "the deceased was not the passenger of the Farakka Express train on 13.03.2007". Admittedly, this is a case where, in consequence of the untoward incident, the appellant has survived the fall and it is he who is claiming compensation. 8 thereof, it is said that "the deceased was not the passenger of the Farakka Express train on 13.03.2007". Admittedly, this is a case where, in consequence of the untoward incident, the appellant has survived the fall and it is he who is claiming compensation. It is further pleaded in the written statement that the untoward incident never took place and the story has been fabricated. It is also averred that the claim application does not disclose an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 8 of the Railways Act, 1989, [for short ‘the Act of 1989’]. 4. On the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the injured was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 2. Whether the incident of sustaining injuries by the injured falls under the ambit of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989? 3. What are the injuries sustained by the injured applicant? 4. To what relief? 5. In support of the claim, the appellant, Ajay Kumar, examined himself as AW1. His examination-in-chief was put in, in the form of an affidavit along with photostat copies of documents viz. the discharge slip from the hospital, the handicap certificate from the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur Dehat and medical prescriptions. Another witness who testified on behalf of the appellant was Smt. Maya, AW2, an eye-witness of the incident. She too put in an affidavit, carrying her evidence by way of examination-in-chief. Both the witnesses for the appellant were cross-examined on behalf of the respondents. 6. The respondent filed documentary evidence, which is an inquiry report of the Inspector, RPF/GMC, Kanpur, a police G.D. entry and a report of the Station In-charge, NCR, Govindpuri. This Court notices that no witness was examined on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal, after hearing parties, decided Issue Nos. 1 and 2 together, by the judgment impugned. It is remarked by the Tribunal that according to the evidence of the appellant, he fell off the Farakka Express while it was passing through the Govindpuri Railway Station on 18.03.2007 and got injured. He was hospitalised in the Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital, Kanpur by Smt. Maya Devi. It is remarked that during his cross-examination, the appellant has said that after the untoward incident, the Police had visited the site and returned without extending any help. He was hospitalised in the Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital, Kanpur by Smt. Maya Devi. It is remarked that during his cross-examination, the appellant has said that after the untoward incident, the Police had visited the site and returned without extending any help. The Police made no efforts to convey him to the hospital. It is said that it was Smt. Maya Devi who took him to the hospital. The Tribunal notes that Smt. Maya Devi has also submitted an affdiavit and has been cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the respondent. Smt. Maya Devi, in her cross-examination, said that she picked up the injured appellant from the site and took him to the Police and Railway Authorities. The Police arranged a tempo to convey the appellant to the hospital. This difference in the version of the appellant and his witness, Maya Devi, has been regarded as a contradiction by the Tribunal, fundamental enough to shake the veracity of the appellant's case. 7. The Tribunal has then considered the documentary evidence offered by the respondents. It is remarked that the inquiry conducted by the Inspector, RPF/GMC, Kanpur and the Police G.D. show that a certain porter, Chhote Lal from the West Cabin, at 07:00 hours, handed over a memo regarding a man who had sustained injuries by train. When the police officials reached at the site, they found the appellant and his nephew, Deepu alias Pradeep Kumar there. The Tribunal records the fact that the inquiry report of the Inspector says that the second class general ticket, on which the appellant was travelling, was from Delhi to Jhinjhak. It was recovered from the person of the injured by the Police and he was dispatched to the Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital by the police officials. Again, at this stage, the assertion in the cross-examination of the appellant that the Police, after reaching the site, went away without assisting him, has been found, on a comparison with the report of the Inspector, RPF/GMC, Kanpur to be a material contradiction. Apart from the contradiction, the Tribunal has concluded that the appellant had a ticket up to Jhinjhak and therefore, at Govindpuri, he was not a bona fide passenger. Apart from the contradiction, the Tribunal has concluded that the appellant had a ticket up to Jhinjhak and therefore, at Govindpuri, he was not a bona fide passenger. It has been held by the Tribunal that initially, burden lies upon the appellant to prove his case of being a victim of an untoward incident by adducing documentary evidence, and the respondents need not disprove the case of the appellant, which on its own strength, is not proved by cogent evidence. The Tribunal has remarked that no evidence was produced on behalf of the appellant, leading to a failure on the appellant's part to discharge his evidential burden under Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Tribunal has held that it is not proved that the appellant was a bona fide passenger on board the train in question, or that he sustained injuries in an untoward incident while travelling on board the said train. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim vide judgment and order dated 26.09.2013. 8. Aggrieved, the appellant has come up through this appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. 9. Heard Ms. Amrita Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Manendra Nath Rai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The records have been carefully perused. 10. The way the Tribunal has looked at the evidence of the appellant AW1 and his witness Smt. Maya Devi, AW2 is patently fallacious. It has disbelieved the untoward incident on account of a contradiction in the testimonies of the appellant and Smt. Maya Devi that could logically be there, given that the appellant had sustained a grievous injury in the untoward incident, leading to amputation of one of his limbs. The contradiction in the evidence of the two, about which the Tribunal has made much ado, is that whereas the appellant says that the Police came to the site and went away without assisting him and that it was Smt. Maya Devi who conveyed him to the hospital, Smt. Maya Devi says that she picked up the appellant on seeing him fall off the train and suffer injuries and took him to the Police and the Railway Authorities. According to Smt. Maya Devi, AW2 it was the Police who arranged a tempo to convey the appellant to the hospital. According to Smt. Maya Devi, AW2 it was the Police who arranged a tempo to convey the appellant to the hospital. This has been discerned as a vital contradiction in the cross-examination of the appellant and his witness Smt. Maya Devi. The evidence of parties is not to be understood or appreciated as if it were by the rules of grammar. It is to be appreciated to understand facts relevant to the issue or the fact in issue itself, as it unfurled on the ground. The Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the appellant was a man who had suffered a grievous injury as a result of the fall from the train that led to the traumatic amputation of one of his lower limbs. In the quick sequence of events after the untoward incident, it is very logical that the appellant misunderstood that the Police did not help, but Smt. Maya Devi conveyed him to the hospital. The fact that Smt. Maya Devi took the help of the Railway Authorities and the Police in conveying the appellant to the hospital may be presenting a full picture of which the traumatized appellant reported the half, that he perceived. Both the appellant and Smt. Maya Devi are ad idem on the point that it was she who picked up the appellant and got him conveyed to the hospital. Whether she did this of her own, without any assistance from the Police or with their assistance, is not at all material. As already remarked, this could be the result of an aberration in perception that the appellant suffered from in the throes of his agony post accident. The Tribunal has, therefore, gone utterly wrong in inferring a contradiction on this count between the testimonies of AW1 and AW2. 11. The other count on which the Tribunal has held against the appellant is that he could not establish himself to be a bona fide passenger on Board the Farakka Express, when he claims to have met the accident. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has heavily relied on the inquiry report conducted by the Inspector, RPF/GMC Kanpur, enclosing with it a copy of the Police G.D. No. 4. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has heavily relied on the inquiry report conducted by the Inspector, RPF/GMC Kanpur, enclosing with it a copy of the Police G.D. No. 4. The Tribunal has remarked that a perusal of the inquiry report and the Police G.D. shows that at 07:00 hours, a porter, Chhote Lal from the West Cabin, handed over a memo regarding a person who had sustained injuries by train. The report has further been noticed to show that when the Police officials reached the site, they found the appellant and his nephew Deepu alias Pradeep Kumar there. The general ticket from Delhi to Jhinjhak was recovered from the appellant and he was dispatched to the Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital by the Police for treatment. It is remarked that what the appellant has said in his cross-examination is not acceptable, in view of the entry in the G.D. The Tribunal has inferred that the appellant had a journey ticket from Delhi to Jhinjhak, and not Kanpur. Since Govindpuri is beyond Jhinjhak, he was not a bona fide passenger on board the Farakka Express, when he suffered the injury, as a result of the untoward incident. The Tribunal has also remarked that the appellant has been trying to mislead the Tribunal and for the purpose, has planted a false witness Smt. Maya Devi. It has also been stated by the Tribunal that the appellant has not come with clean hands. 12. On a reading of the inquiry report submitted by the Inspector, RPF/GMC, Kanpur, the Police G.D. and the cross-examination of Smt. Maya Devi, it is evident the finding of the Tribunal on this score is not only wrong, but also perverse. Perverse this Court says because once the Inspector, RPF/GMC, Kanpur had acknowledged in his inquiry report supported by the G.D. that a railway ticket had been recovered from the appellant, entitling him to travel from Delhi to Jhinjhak, the failure of the respondent in producing the recovered ticket would result in failure to discharge evidential burden on the respondents' part. The inference would be that the appellant was travelling on a valid ticket up to Kanpur and the respondents, after admittedly recovering the railway ticket, have not produced it in evidence, because if produced, it would go against their stand. The inference would be that the appellant was travelling on a valid ticket up to Kanpur and the respondents, after admittedly recovering the railway ticket, have not produced it in evidence, because if produced, it would go against their stand. There is no explanation given why the recovered ticket mentioned in the report of the Inspector, RPF/GMC, Kanpur has not been put in evidence by the respondents. Therefore, it has to be held that the appellant was travelling on a valid railway ticket from Delhi to Kanpur. If one were to assume on the admitted state of evidence, that is established by the report of the Inspector, RPF/GMC, Kanpur, that the appellant had a ticket valid up to Jhinjhak alone and had overshot his destination, suffering the accident at Govindpuri, that too would not deprive him of his status as a bona fide passenger. If a passenger overshoots his destination vis-à-vis the railway ticket held by him, the legal position is beyond cavil. All that the Railways can do is to charge him for the extra distance travelled, but cannot dub him as a passenger not bona fide travelling on board train. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Vaishali v. Union of India, 2011 ACJ 106 , where it has been held : 10. ....Merely because he had over-travelled beyond his authorised distance of Bhusawal, it would not be enough to label him a mala fide or fraudulent passenger. Looking to the rulings cited and provisions of the Act, Railway Manual, at the most, the Railways could have recovered excess fare or charge from him beyond the travelling destination; furthermore, he could also be allowed to return to the station of his destination in view of the Rules. ..... 13. Also, it is well-settled that the mere absence of a railway ticket with the victim of a railway accident would not show that he was not a bona fide passenger. The claimant would discharge his initial burden or evidential burden by asserting on affidavit that he was a bona fide passenger, whereupon the burden would shift to the Railways and the issue has then to be decided, after both the sides lead evidence, according to the facts of each case and the circumstances. The claimant would discharge his initial burden or evidential burden by asserting on affidavit that he was a bona fide passenger, whereupon the burden would shift to the Railways and the issue has then to be decided, after both the sides lead evidence, according to the facts of each case and the circumstances. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 , where it was 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 ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative 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. (Emphasis by Court) 14. Here, the facts place the appellant, as already said, on a much better footing, because possession of railway ticket by him is admitted to the Inspector, RPF/GMC, Kanpur Nagar and a mention of it is to be found in the Police G.D. The reference to the ticket specifically shows that it was taken away by the police officials, when the appellant was sent to the hospital. 15. Before parting with the matter, the fact that the appellant sustained injuries in an untoward incident while travelling on board the train in question, can be best visualised by the very natural description of the incident in the cross-examination of AW2 Smt. Maya Devi, who is, in no way, related to the appellant. 15. Before parting with the matter, the fact that the appellant sustained injuries in an untoward incident while travelling on board the train in question, can be best visualised by the very natural description of the incident in the cross-examination of AW2 Smt. Maya Devi, who is, in no way, related to the appellant. She has, in her cross-examination, described the incident thus : ?kVuk 18&3&2007 dh gSA ?kVuk 5 cts ds yxHkx dh gSA ?kk;y vt; esjs lkeus fxjkA ml le; xkM+h py jgh FkhA igys eSaus ?kk;y dks mBk;k vkSj viuk dke eSa ml le; Hkwy x;hA eSa ?kk;y dks ugha tkurh FkhA ?kVukLFky ls ?kk;y dks mBkdjds] yksx LVs'ku ys x, ogkWa iqfyl vkSj jsyos&okyksa dks crk;kA fQj iqfyl us VsEiksa djkdj] mlesa ?kk;y dks] vLirky ys x,A iqfyl okyksa us dksbZ fy[kk&iढ+h ugha dhA iqfyl esjs lkFk x;h FkhA eSa vt; ds dgus ij xokgh nsus vk;h gwWaA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSa ;gkWa ij xyr c;ku ns jgh gwWaA lqudj rLnhd fd;kA 16. The aforesaid testimony of AW2 Smt. Maya Devi leaves this Court in no manner of doubt that the appellant was a bona fide passenger on board the Farakka Express, who suffered a fall from the train and became the victim of an untoward incident, while the train was moving. 17. In the circumstances, the Railways must be held, as already said, to have failed to discharge their evidential burden by producing the ticket, leading to an adverse inference against the Railways. By no means can the appellant be regarded as one who was not a bona fide passenger, under the circumstances, travelling up to Kanpur. The findings returned by the Tribunal, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot at all be sustained and the judgment deserves to be reversed. 18. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed with costs. The impugned judgment and order dated 16.09.2013 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Case No. OA0700241 is hereby set aside and reversed. The claim application stands allowed. 19. It is ordered that the appellant is entitled to receive in compensation a sum of Rs. 4 lacs, which shall be paid to him, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, by the respondents. The claim application stands allowed. 19. It is ordered that the appellant is entitled to receive in compensation a sum of Rs. 4 lacs, which shall be paid to him, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, by the respondents. In the event, the compensation awarded is not paid within a period of 90 days, the compensation awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum after expiry of the period of 90 days from the date of this judgment till realisation. Let the lower court records be sent down to the Tribunal, together with a certified copy of this judgment passed by this Court. 20. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the General Manager, Northern Railways, Baroda House, New Delhi by the Senior Registrar.