JUDGMENT : 1. In this appeal, filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”), challenge is to the judgment and order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, whereby the claim for compensation filed by the appellant/claimant was dismissed. 2. Background facts:- The deceased Praful s/o Narendra Jagtap was son of the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that on 26.11.2018 her son after purchasing the journey ticket for Chandur Railway to Mumbai boarded train No.8030 UP i.e. Shalimar Express in presence of his friend. When the train started to run, the deceased accidentally fell down and died on the spot at Pole No.691/23 at Chandur Railway Station. It is stated that deceased died in untoward incident. He was travelling by the said train as a bona fide passenger with valid journey ticket from Chandur Railway to Mumbai. The appellant, therefore, claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, due to death of her son in untoward incident 3. Respondent-railway filed written statement and opposed the claim. In sum and substance, the respondent has denied the material facts. It is denied that deceased had purchased railway ticket and boarded the train as bona fide passenger. There was no eye witness to the incident. There is no witness to rule out the possibility of deceased sustaining self inflicted injury due to his negligent act. As per memo issued by the Station Superintendent, Chandur Railway Station the deceased was cut by Train No.18030 UP Shalimar Express. The case in question is not covered in the definition of untoward incident. The deceased himself was responsible for the incident. The railway was not responsible for death of the deceased. 4. The appellant-mother of the deceased examined herself as a sole witness. The respondent-railway did not examine any witness. Railway Claims Tribunal on consideration of the material on record dismissed the claim. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order has come before this Court. 5. I have heard Shri R.G. Bagul, learned Advocate for the appellant and Smt Neeraja Chaubey, learned Advocate for the respondent. Perused the record and proceedings. 6. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that there is ample evidence on record to prove that deceased died in untoward incident and therefore, the appellant is entitled to get the compensation on account of death of her son. Perused the record and proceedings. 6. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that there is ample evidence on record to prove that deceased died in untoward incident and therefore, the appellant is entitled to get the compensation on account of death of her son. Learned Advocate further submitted that there is ample evidence to substantiate the claim of the appellant that deceased was bona fide passenger inasmuch as he was travelling with a valid ticket. Learned Advocate submitted that mere absence of ticket with injured or deceased is not sufficient to reject the claim of the appellant on the ground that deceased was not bona fide passenger. Learned Advocate pointed out that the appellant has filed the affidavit and narrated in detail the circumstances which led to death of the deceased. Learned Advocate submitted that on the basis of the relevant facts stated in the affidavit the appellant has discharged her initial onus and established that deceased was bona fide passenger travelling with ticket. In order to seek support to this submission learned Advocate has placed heavy reliance on the decision in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 . Learned Advocate submitted that after discharge of the onus on the basis of the facts stated in the affidavit respondent was supposed to adduce the evidence and disprove the facts stated in the affidavit filed by the appellant. Learned Advocate submitted that in the absence of evidence the claim filed by the appellant deserves acceptance. The respondent has not adduced evidence to disprove that the deceased was not bona fide passenger. Learned Advocate for the appellant relied upon a decision in the case of Kamukayi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 642. 7. Smt. Neeraja Chaubey, learned Advocate for the respondent-railway submitted that affidavit filed by the appellant is not sufficient to prove the basic facts and discharge the onus that the deceased was travelling with valid ticket and as such was a bona fide passenger. Learned Advocate took me through the evidence of the appellant and pointed out that in her evidence, she has stated that deceased had boarded train in the presence of his friend but friend of the deceased was not examined. Similarly, his name was not stated in the affidavit. Learned Advocate took me through the evidence of the appellant and pointed out that in her evidence, she has stated that deceased had boarded train in the presence of his friend but friend of the deceased was not examined. Similarly, his name was not stated in the affidavit. Learned Advocate therefore, submitted that in the absence of this basic evidence the deceased could not be held to be a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid ticket. Learned Advocate therefore, submitted that in the absence of discharge of onus respondent could not be called upon to disprove the fact which has not been proved. It is submitted that in absence of discharge of the onus, asking the respondent to prove this fact would be nothing short of casting negative burden on the respondent. Learned Advocate took me through the evidence and pointed out that at the time of inquest panchanama other belongings of the deceased were found but ticket was not found. Learned Advocate, therefore, submitted that on this ground learned Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim. Learned Advocate further submitted that the Tribunal was right in holding that the death did not occur in untoward incident. 8. Section 123 of the Act relevant for purpose of this appeal can be re produced. It reads thus:- “123. Definitions.- In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires- (a) “accident” means an accident of the nature described in Section 124; (b) *** (c) “untoward incident” means- *** (2) the accident falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.” 9. The question that needs to be addressed is whether the deceased died in untoward incident. The above definition is required to be borne in mind while appreciating the evidence. Reliance is placed on the report made by the Station Master. In the report, it was stated that body of one person was cut into two parts and was lying on the railway line. The inquest panchanama was drawn. The investigation was carried out by the railway police. The result of investigation is relevant for this purpose. It was stated in the result of investigation that the deceased fell down while boarding the train and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The inquest panchanama is on record. The position and condition of dead body has been categorically mentioned in the panchanama. The result of investigation is relevant for this purpose. It was stated in the result of investigation that the deceased fell down while boarding the train and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The inquest panchanama is on record. The position and condition of dead body has been categorically mentioned in the panchanama. The documentary evidence coupled with the evidence of the appellant is sufficient to prove that deceased was to travel from Chandur Railway to Mumbai and for the said purpose he was boarding the train and while boarding train, he lost his balance and fell down. It is further pertinent to note that respondent has not examined any witness to rebut the evidence available on record which clearly indicate that death was caused in untoward incident. It is further seen that the case in question is not of run over. The report made by the Station Master does not indicate that any report was made by the Loco Pilot about dash to any person on the track. In this case, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the appellant has proved that death was caused in untoward incident. In the teeth of evidence on record the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the death was not in untoward incident cannot be sustained. 10. The next important question is whether the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger or not. At the out set, it would be necessary to consider the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi (supra). Paragraph No.29 of the decision is relevant for this purpose. It is reproduced below:- “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 which 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. 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.” 11. The question is whether the evidence on record is sufficient to satisfy the basic requirements as held by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi (supra). It is to be noted that in view of this decision mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bonafide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing of an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railway and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or on the attending circumstances. It is held in this decision that this will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. In this case, the appellant is mother of the deceased. The only question that needs to be addressed is as to whether the evidence on record is sufficient to discharge the initial burden cast on the shoulder of the appellant. The appellant has filed her affidavit stating the relevant facts which led to the death of her son. It is true that at the time of inquest panchanama, the railway ticket was not found/recovered. It is seen that other articles belongings to the deceased were recovered. The question is whether mere absence of recovery of railway ticket from the deceased would a circumstance sufficient to deny the claim. The documentary evidence on record is sufficient to prove that deceased while boarding the train lost his balance and fell down and died due to injuries sustained by him. The evidence on record is sufficient to prove that the deceased died in untoward incident. 12. The mother of the deceased has filed the affidavit. In her affidavit, she has narrated in detail the circumstances which led to death of her son. The evidence on record is sufficient to prove that the deceased died in untoward incident. 12. The mother of the deceased has filed the affidavit. In her affidavit, she has narrated in detail the circumstances which led to death of her son. Besides narrating the circumstances which led to death of her son she has stated that her son had purchased journey ticket from Chandur Railway to Mumbai. She has stated that said ticket was lost in the accident. She has stated that her son had boarded train No.8030 Up Shalimar Express. She has also stated that GRP Badnera went to the spot and prepared the spot panchanama and inquest panchanama. In her affidavit, she has categorically stated that her son was travelling with valid ticket from Chandur Railway to Mumbai. She was cross-examined. She has admitted that she had not seen ticket purchased by her son. She has admitted that the police handed over to her laptap, mobile bag with belonging of her son to her. She was asked in the cross-examination the reason for not mentioning the name of friend of her son. It was not suggested that the friend of son did not accompany him. It is true that the friend of son was not examined. 13. The evidence has to be read in juxtaposition with the spot panchanama and inquest panchanama. Perusal of spot panchanama would indicate that it is silent about the search taken on the spot to find out the ticket. The deceased was travelling from Chandure Railway to Mumbai. In view of the evidence adduced by the appellant on affidavit and in view of the fact that there was no evidence in rebuttal by the railway, an inference consistent with the fact situation would support the case of the appellant that the deceased was travelling with valid ticket and as such was bona fide passenger. 14. It is to be noted that the enactment is a piece of social beneficial legislation. The rights of claim cannot be turned down on some technical ground. The appellant is the unfortunate mother of the deceased. The deceased was unmarried. The bona fides of the appellant also requires to be born in mind. 14. It is to be noted that the enactment is a piece of social beneficial legislation. The rights of claim cannot be turned down on some technical ground. The appellant is the unfortunate mother of the deceased. The deceased was unmarried. The bona fides of the appellant also requires to be born in mind. If the intention of the appellant was to put forth the false case then she would have filed an affidavit stating that she had seen the deceased purchasing the ticket and the occurrence of the incident. She did not do that. It is pertinent to note that person travelling from Chandur Railway to Mumbai would not take the risk of travelling without ticket. It is not out of place to mention here that for the purpose of checking the passengers travelling without tickets every railway station and every train is manned by the train ticket chequers. In the facts and circumstances, in my view, the affidavit filed by the mother is sufficient to discharge the onus. On the basis of that evidence it has been proved that deceased was travelling with a valid ticket. He was bona fide passenger. Perusal of the judgment passed by the Tribunal would show that all these aspects and particularly the decision in the case of Rina Devi (supra) has not been properly considered and applied by the Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances, in my view, appeal deserves to be allowed. 15. The appeal is allowed. 16. The order passed by Railways Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur dated 22.12.2020 is quashed and set aside. 17. The claim petition filed by the appellant is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rs. Eight Lakhs Only) to the appellant - Smt. Sadhna wd/o Narendra Jagtap. In the facts and circumstances appellant- Smt. Sadhna wd/o Narendra Jagtap shall be entitled to get interest on this amount of compensation at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of incident. 18. The respondent shall pay the amount of compensation with interest to the appellant within four months. The amount of compensation with interest be transferred directly in the bank account of the appellant. The appellant shall provide to the respondent the details with regard to her bank and bank account. 19. The First Appeal stands disposed of.