JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-Union of India of India/original respondent under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 27.06.1997 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Claim Application OA No.9700006. By the said judgment and order, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition in a fatal case awarding the compensation to the original claimants of an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs with further directions of disbursement. 2. The facts giving rise to filling of the present appeal as narrated by the appellant in the present appeal are stated hereunder: 2.1 The opponent/original applicant preferred claim application being OA No.9700006 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad seeking compensation for the untimely death of her husband who unfortunately fell down from a running train 9030-UP while travelling from Ranoli to Baroda. The deceased fell down near Baroda Yard (D) Cabin on 14.11.1996. 2.2 The deceased was serving at Ranoli and used to commute frequently between Baroda to Ranoli and as he was having his residence at Baroda. Due to untimely death of the husband of the applicant, the original claimant has approached the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs with interest. 2.3 The precise question which was decided by the Tribunal was whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger in the train and can be considered the dependent heirs of the deceased. 2.4 Before the Tribunal, the claimant had herself appeared as witness and was examined at Exh.9. The reliance was placed on the panchnama drawn by the Police Authorities during the investigation of the accidental case at Exh.10. The copy of inquest panchnama was also produced at Exh.11 and the post mortem note was produced at Exh.12. 2.5 The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the aforesaid evidence in light of Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989,more particularly amended Section as inserted after Clause-’B’ by Act 28 of 1994, which defines the term “untoward incident”. The Tribunal noticed that subsection 2 of Clause-’C’ of Section 123 of the Act, considers the accidental falling of any passenger from the train carrying passengers to mean “untoward incident”. The Tribunal further examined the contention of the respondent-Railway of the claimant has not proved that the deceased was a bona fide passenger in the train. The Tribunal noticed that subsection 2 of Clause-’C’ of Section 123 of the Act, considers the accidental falling of any passenger from the train carrying passengers to mean “untoward incident”. The Tribunal further examined the contention of the respondent-Railway of the claimant has not proved that the deceased was a bona fide passenger in the train. Upon close appreciation of the evidence of the original claimant, the Tribunal noticed that the claimant has produced monthly season tickets at Exh.13 of the month of November-1995, March-1996, April-1996 and May-1996, which indicates that her husband was holding monthly seasonal tickets as he was frequently travelling between Ranoli and Baroda. By relying upon the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Rajkumari vs. Union of India reported in 1994(1) T.A.C. 67, the Tribunal took into consideration of Section 113 and Section 122 of the Railways Act, 1989, which makes the travelling without ticket is an offence under certain circumstances. However, the Tribunal was of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it can presume the fact of the deceased holding a valid ticket, by taking aid of Section 114 of the Act, by keeping in mind the prohibition envisaged under Section 68 of the Act against travelling on train without ticket, and arrived at a conclusion that the claimant had succeeded to raise presumption and the burden was upon the respondent-Union to prove the fact that the deceased was a ticketless traveller and was not a bona fide passenger. 2.6 The Tribunal further took into consideration the benevolent object of the Act to compensate monetarily against the loss of the head of the family in a railway accident, and thereby did not entertain the contention respondent by the respondent Union. The Tribunal noticed that the claimant had given birth to baby boy just after three days of sad demise of her husband and considering the loss of head of the family, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs as per the schedule provided unde Rule 3 of the Railways Accident (Compensation) Rules, 1990. Hence, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the respondent-Union has approached this Court by way of present appeal. 3. Learned advocate Ms. Archana Amin has appeared on behalf of the appellant-Union of India and learned advocate Mr. Hence, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the respondent-Union has approached this Court by way of present appeal. 3. Learned advocate Ms. Archana Amin has appeared on behalf of the appellant-Union of India and learned advocate Mr. Radhesh Vyas has appeared for and on behalf of the respondent-original claimant. 4. This Court, vide order dated 20.01.2020, had issued Rule for final disposal, looking to the nature of dispute involved and the matter has been notified for final hearing. Pending this appeal, the original papers were lost and pursuant to the note placed by the Registry, the matter has been re-constructed. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has apprised this Court about the merits of the case, and has submitted that the Tribunal committed serious error to hold against the respondent- Union without appreciating the facts and evidence on record in its true perspective. According to the appellant, the burden was upon the claimant to substantiate the facts that the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the date of the incident. It was further submitted that in absence of any tickets being produced by the claimant or being recovered from the deceased during the panchnama, the Tribunal ought not to have accepted the case of the claimant of deceased travelling in the train as a bona fide passenger. It was further submitted that even if the case of the deceased being bona fide passenger was to be believed, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the husband of the opponent died due to knock down by some unknown train. It was further submitted that the Railway Compensation Act being a special enactment in order to consider it as an untoward incident in light of Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989. The claimant was essentially required to prove that there was accidental falling of the deceased, the person who had fallen down was a passenger and the passenger had fallen down from the train in which he was travelling meaning thereby, he seems to be inside the train prior to falling down. Since the claimant has failed to produce any proof to the effect that he was a passenger, except for the prior tickets being produced, the Tribunal merely on presumption, could not have proceeded to treat the victim as a bona fide passenger and consequential entitlement of compensation. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Since the claimant has failed to produce any proof to the effect that he was a passenger, except for the prior tickets being produced, the Tribunal merely on presumption, could not have proceeded to treat the victim as a bona fide passenger and consequential entitlement of compensation. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Vyas appearing for the respondent has vehemently objected to the aforesaid submissions of the learned advocate for the appellant-Union. According to him, the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence in its true perspective and as per the provisions of law, and hence, no error can be found with the approach of the Tribunal in allowing the claim petition. It was further submitted that in absence of any error or perversity being pointed out by the learned advocate for the appellant-Union, the present appeal is required to be dismissed. It was further pointed out that till date, the claimant has not received any pie of compensation, and has, therefore, urged to award interest on the amount of compensation. 7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the impugned judgment and order as well as looking to the submissions made before this Court, the only issue which falls for consideration is, whether the Tribunal has committed any error in treating the deceased as a bona fide passenger and awarding the amount of compensation of an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs, in the facts of the case. 8. Upon appreciation of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the original claimant has proved her case to the extent that the deceased expired due to the injury sustained by him by falling from the train. Apart from the examination-in-chief of the original claimant, her evidence has been corroborated by the documentary evidences like the panchnama drawn by the police recording the place of occurrence of the incident, the inquest panchnama and the post mortem report. Though the appellant-Union of India has made an attempt to raise a defence of negligence of the deceased by contending that the deceased had fallen from the train on account of jerk or push or otherwise, and thereafter, being knock down by some other train, and therefore, incident being not covered under the provisions of Section 123 of the Act, is without any basis inasmuch as the appellant-Union of India has failed to lead any evidence in this regard. The appellant- Union of India has tried to dispute their liability by raising contention that in absence of any ticket being recovered from the body of the deceased, the initial burden of proof was not shifted. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed serious error in placing burden upon the appellant-Union of India and the aforesaid approach of Tribunal, is against the well settled legal position of law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Of India vs. Rina Devi and others reported in 2019 (3) SCC 572 , more so when the respondent has disputed the assertions made by claimant. 9. In my opinion, the issue raised in the matter does not require any further discussion in view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the Act, has answered the aforesaid issue. It is held that mere presence of a body on the Railway premises would not be a 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 would not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Though, initial burden would be on the claimant. Such burden can be discharged by filing an affidavit on the relevant facts and thereafter, the burden would shift upon the railway authorities. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rina Devi (supra) are reproduced as hereunder: “26. Conflict of decisions has been pointed out on the subject. As noticed from the statutory provision, compensation is payable for death or injury of a ‘passenger’. In Raj Kumari (supra) referring to the scheme of Railways Act, 1890, it was observed that since travelling without ticket was punishable, the burden was on the railway administration to prove that passenger was not a bonafide passenger. The Railway Administration has special knowledge whether ticket was issued or not. 1989 Act also has similar provisions being Sections 55 and 137. This view has led to an inference that any person dead or injured found on the railway premises has to be presumed to be a bona fide passenger so as to maintain a claim for compensation. The Railway Administration has special knowledge whether ticket was issued or not. 1989 Act also has similar provisions being Sections 55 and 137. This view has led to an inference that any person dead or injured found on the railway premises has to be presumed to be a bona fide passenger so as to maintain a claim for compensation. However, Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh (supra) held that initial onus to prove death or injury to a bona fide passenger is always on the claimant. However, such onus can shift on Railways if an affidavit of relevant facts is filed by the claimant. A negative onus cannot be placed on the Railways. Onus to prove that the deceased or injured was a bona fide passenger can be discharged even in absence of a ticket if relevant facts are shown that ticket was purchased but it was lost. The Delhi High Court observed as follows : (Gurcharan Singh case 25, SCC OnLine Del Para 4) “4. … (ii) In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants is totally misconceived. The initial onus in my opinion always lies with the appellants/claimants to show that there is a death due to untoward incident of a bona fide passenger. Of course, by filing of the affidavit and depending on the facts of a particular case that initial onus can be a light onus which can shift on the Railways, however, it is not the law that even the initial onus of proof which has to be discharged is always on the railways and not on the claimants. I cannot agree to this proposition of law that the Railways have the onus to prove that a deceased was not a bonafide passenger because no such negative onus is placed upon the Railways either under the Railways Act or the Railway Claims Tribunal Act & Rules or as per any judgment of the Supreme Court. I cannot agree to this proposition of law that the Railways have the onus to prove that a deceased was not a bonafide passenger because no such negative onus is placed upon the Railways either under the Railways Act or the Railway Claims Tribunal Act & Rules or as per any judgment of the Supreme Court. No doubt, in the facts of the particular case, onus can be easily discharged such as in a case where deceased may have died at a place where he could not have otherwise been unless he was travelling in the train and in such circumstances depending on the facts of a particular case it may not be necessary to prove the factum of the deceased having a ticket because ticket as per the type of incident of death can easily be lost in an accident. I at this stage take note of a judgment of a leaned Single Judge of this Court in the case reported as Pyar Singh Vs. Union of India 2007 (8) AD Del. 262 which holds that it is the claimant upon whom the initial onus lies to prove his case. I agree to this view and I am bound by this judgment and not by the ratio of the case of Leelamma (supra). 27. In Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi (supra) same view was taken by a single Judge of Andhra Pradesh after referring to the provisions of the Evidence Act as follows : (SCC OnLine AP para 24) “24. So, from Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is clear that the applicants, having come to the court asserting some facts, must prove that the death of the deceased had taken place in an untoward incident and that the death occurred while the deceased was travelling in a train carrying passengers as a passenger with valid ticket. Therefore, having asserted that the deceased died in an untoward incident and he was having a valid ticket at the time of his death, the initial burden lies on the applicants to establish the same. The initial burden of the applicants never shifts unless the respondent admits the assertions made by the applicants. Such evidence is lacking in this case. Except the oral assertion of A.W.1, no evidence is forthcoming on behalf of the applicants. The initial burden of the applicants never shifts unless the respondent admits the assertions made by the applicants. Such evidence is lacking in this case. Except the oral assertion of A.W.1, no evidence is forthcoming on behalf of the applicants. The court may presume that the evidence which could be, and is not produced, would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. The best evidence rule, which governs the production of evidence in courts, requires that the best evidence of which the case in its nature is susceptible should always be produced. Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 enables the court to draw an adverse presumption against a person who can make available to the court, but obstructs the availability of such an evidence. The Claims Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, rightly dismissed the claim of the applicants and there are no grounds in this appeal to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.” 28. In Kamrunnissa (supra), from the circumstances appearing in that case it was held that there was no evidence that the deceased had purchased the ticket. In the given fact situation of that case, this Court inferred that it was not a case of ‘untoward incident’ but a case of run over. It was observed : “7. The aforestated report also reveals, that the body of the deceased had been cut into two pieces, and was lying next to the railway track. The report further indicates, that the intestine of the deceased had come out of the body. The above factual position reveals, that the body was cut into two pieces from the stomach. This can be inferred from the facts expressed in the inquest report, that the intestines of the deceased had come out of the body. It is not possible for us to accept, that such an accident could have taken place while boarding a train. 8. In addition to the factual position emerging out of a perusal of paragraphs 7 & 8 extracted hereinabove, the report also reveals, that besides a pocket diary having been found from the person of the deceased a few telephone numbers were also found, but importantly, the deceased was not in possession of any other article. 8. In addition to the factual position emerging out of a perusal of paragraphs 7 & 8 extracted hereinabove, the report also reveals, that besides a pocket diary having been found from the person of the deceased a few telephone numbers were also found, but importantly, the deceased was not in possession of any other article. This further clears the position adopted by the railway authorities, namely, that the deceased Gafoor Sab, was not in possession of a ticket, for boarding the train at the Devangere Railway Station.” 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.” 10. In light of the aforesaid legal position applying in the facts of the case, even considering the contention of learned advocate for the appellant-Union of India about absence of the ticket, the claim of bona fide passenger could not be refused, looking to the attending circumstances as brought on record through the evidence of wife of the deceased. It has emerged on record that the deceased used to frequently commute between Ranoli to Baroda as he was residing at Baroda and was expected to attend his work at Ranoli, for which, he used to purchase seasonal tickets. The seasonal tickets purchased by the deceased husband have been brought on record collectively at Exh.13. On the other hand, in such kind of accidents, the recovery of tickets from the body of the deceased would be a rare occasion and the claimants are always in a difficult position to prove the factum of purchase of tickets as the tickets are likely to easily get lost in the accident. 11. On the other hand, in such kind of accidents, the recovery of tickets from the body of the deceased would be a rare occasion and the claimants are always in a difficult position to prove the factum of purchase of tickets as the tickets are likely to easily get lost in the accident. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts whereby the affidavit of the wife of the deceased has come on record on the relevant facts, the claimant has successfully dislodged the initial burden upon the railway. In absence of any contradictory evidence being brought on record by the railway, the appellant-Union of India has failed to dislodge the burden of proof. 12. In my view, the Tribunal has rightly inferred from the aforesaid material brought on record with the aid of Section 114 of the Evidence Act to conclude that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and had succumbed to the injuries received because of falling from the train, and, is therefore, covered under the provisions of Section 123 of the Act. So far as the computation of the amount of compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs awarded by the Tribunal in the facts of the case is concerned, no error can be found with the decision of the Tribunal in awarding the amount of Rs.2 Lakhs. Hence, the present appeal is devoid of any merits, and is hereby rejected. 13. Noticing the fact that the incident relates to year-1996 and though the award has been passed in the year 1997, in absence of any amount being deposited by the appellant-Union of India and received by the respondent-original claimant, this Court is of the view that, let aforesaid award amount be deposited with interest at the rate of 6% per anuum from the date of filing of the original application till the date of the award, and thereafter, at the rate of 9% from the date of the award till its realization. Let the aforesaid amount of compensation with interest be deposited with the concerned Railway Claims Tribunal preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Upon depositing of the aforesaid award amount with interest, the Tribunal is hereby directed to release and disburse the aforesaid entire award amount in favour of the respondent-original claimant, preferably within a period of one week thereafter, subject to proper verification. 14. Upon depositing of the aforesaid award amount with interest, the Tribunal is hereby directed to release and disburse the aforesaid entire award amount in favour of the respondent-original claimant, preferably within a period of one week thereafter, subject to proper verification. 14. With these observations and directions, present appeal stands disposed of, in aforesaid terms. Connected civil application also stands disposed of, accordingly.