JUDGMENT : The present Appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.12.2019 passed in OA/II/u/92 of 2015 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravti Bench, Guntur (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. Heard Smt. N.S. Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The claim of appellant/applicant before the Tribunal is that the application has been filed by the appellant under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124A and 125 of Indian Railways Act 1989 against the respondent Railway administration claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest from the date of accident and costs for the injuries suffered by the applicant in an alleged untoward incident. The claim of the appellant is that on 15.11.2014, the applicant went to Giddalur, and after completion of some work, on return journey he came to Giddalur Railway station, purchased a train ticket to Narasaraopet and boarded general compartment of train No.57623 Kacheguda-Guntur passenger. During the travel, when the train halted at Jaikrishnapuram Railway station, to attend natural call, he got down from the train and while re-boarding the train, the train started and, in that process, the applicant slipped and fell down from the train. His right leg was severely crushed, cut and separated at knee and his left food was also severely crushed, cut and separated at the ankle joint. Immediately he was taken by 108 Ambulance to Government General Hospital at Cumbum by the Railway station staff and railway police. Later, he was shifted to Tulsi Multi Specialty Hospital, Guntur, where he was treated as inpatient. The applicant claimed that he lost train ticket during the process of shifting him from the place of occurrence to the Hospital. 4. The respondent filed its written statement and denied all the allegations made in the claim application. It is admitted that the applicant was found in injured condition at Jaggambotla Krishnapuram Railway station at about 21.15 hrs. on 15.11.2014 and that Railway officials immediately attended to him and made arrangements to take him to Government General Hospital, Cumbum by 108 ambulance. The respondent filed its written statement and denied all the allegations made in the claim application. It is admitted that the applicant was found in injured condition at Jaggambotla Krishnapuram Railway station at about 21.15 hrs. on 15.11.2014 and that Railway officials immediately attended to him and made arrangements to take him to Government General Hospital, Cumbum by 108 ambulance. It is further stated that the claim on the grounds that when the Railway officials made enquiries with him, he did not produce any ticket to them and admitted that he travelled without ticket and also stated that the applicant was in intoxicated state at the time of incident. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues : (i) Whether the applicant(s) was a bonafide passenger of the train and sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident? (ii) Whether the applicant is entitled to claim the compensation as prayed for and to what relief? 6. During course of the trial, the appellant/ applicant was examined as AW.1 and he relied upon original/certified copies of photo, previous journey ticket, station Superintendent’s Memo, SHO’s Memo, Police intimation, statement of injured, hospital records, Disability certificate and Aadhar card, which were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. on behalf of the respondent, it only relied upon statutory investigation report-DRM report, which was marked as Ex.R1. 7. Basing on the facts and circumstances, attending circumstances and preponderance of evidence on record, the Tribunal has dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came to be filed. 8. On hearing, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of Tribunal is contrary to law and contrary to facts of the case and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. She further submits that the Tribunal has shown narrow minded approach, while adjudicating the case. She further submits that the Tribunal erroneously appreciated the applicability of the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railway Act, to the present case. She submits that the tribunal grossly erred in holding that the injuries sustained by the applicant and also grossly held that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger The Tribunal adopted a very narrow approach in this matter. She further submits that the tribunal erred in holding that the injuries occurred does not fall under the definition of “untoward Incident”. She further submits that the tribunal erred in holding that the injuries occurred does not fall under the definition of “untoward Incident”. Further the tribunal grossly erred in appreciating the evidence on record and discarded the prima facie documents filed by the applicant/appellant. She further submits that in absence of any cogent evidence, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation as prescribed. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent while denying the contentions made by the appellant, contended that the claim on the grounds that when the Railway officials made enquiries with him, he did not produce any ticket to them and admitted that he travelled without ticket. He further submits that the appellant was in intoxicated state at the time of incident. Therefore, there is no corroborative evidence to prove the claim of the appellant and hence prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10. On perusing the entire material available on record, this Court observed that, according to appellant, he was a bona fide passenger of train No.57623 Kachiguda-Guntur passenger on 15.11.2014 from Giddalur to Narasaraopet and during his journey he got down at Jaggambotla Krishnapuram Railway station for attending Natural call and while reboarding the train started and he accidentally fell down from the train at the Railway station premises and suffered injuries. It is also observed that the appellant admitted that railway station officials and Government Railway police attended to him and sent him to Government General Hospital at cumbum by 108 ambulance. 11. As seen from the impugned judgment, it is observed that, the respondent admitted that the appellant was found with injuries immediately after passing of train No.57623 Kachiguda-Guntur passenger on 15.11.2014 at Jaggambotla Krishnapuram Railway station and that they attended to him and sent him by 108 ambulance to Hospital, escorted by a Railway staff. 12. On a perusal of the records of the incident i.e., Form-1 and Form-2, wherein brief particulars of untoward incident are recorded as per the above forms, the appellant was found injured prior to 21.15 hrs on 15.11.2014 at J.K. Railway station and that while reboarding the train after attending nature’s call at the railway station the incident happened. 13. 12. On a perusal of the records of the incident i.e., Form-1 and Form-2, wherein brief particulars of untoward incident are recorded as per the above forms, the appellant was found injured prior to 21.15 hrs on 15.11.2014 at J.K. Railway station and that while reboarding the train after attending nature’s call at the railway station the incident happened. 13. This Court further observed from the impugned judgment that, on 4.4.2017, as the appellant in chief stated that “immediately the concerned railway station staff and officials attended the spot, rendered the first-aid took his identity, particulars of his journey, ticket, accident and shifted him by 108 ambulance from there to Government General Hospital, Cumbum by them and admitted him as in-patient through Railway police. This corroborates the statements of the Assistant Station Master and the Yard Pointsman that they made enquiries with the appellant about his travel and ticket and that the appellant has told them that he was not in possession of any valid journey ticket. 14. This Court further observed that thought the appellant has lost the journey ticket during the accident, he has produced original ticket, purportedly used by him for his journey from Narasaraopet to Giddalur on the same date, which was marked as Ex.A2. the claim of the appellant is that he lost his journey ticket for travel from Giddalur to Narasaraopet alone, nothing else, including his old ticket, money or any other document or valuable in the incident is improbable. 15. It is pertinent to mention here that as per Section 123 (c )(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, the accident falling of any passenger from a train carrying passers, reads as under : Section 123 in The Railways Act, 1989 123. Definitions.—In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,— (a) “accident” means an accident of the nature described in section 124; (b) “dependant” means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:— (i) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent; (ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a pre-deceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger; (iii) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger; (iv) the paternal grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger. 25 [(c) “untoward incident” means— (1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. 16. On one hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the applicant was a bona fide passenger with a valid journey ticket. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that no railway ticket was found at the time of incident. 17. In a case of Union of India (stated supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, on the burden of proof, which emphasized that any person found dead or injured on railway premises is presumed to be a bona fide passenger unless the railway administration proves otherwise. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal are perverse. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon perusing the material available on record, it is observed that the respondent is failed to establish that whether the injured/appellant is a bona fide passenger or not, as the burden lies on the respondent authorities and hence the railway administration is liable to pay the adequate compensation. Therefore, considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the considered opinion that while setting aside the impugned judgment, inclined to allow the present appeal. 19. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The impugned dated 20.12.2019 passed in OA/II/u/92 of 2015 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravti Bench, Guntur, is hereby set aside. The appellants were awarded compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim application till its realization. The respondent, Union of India, is directed to pay the compensation amount within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 20. The respondent, Union of India, is directed to pay the compensation amount within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 20. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.