JUDGMENT : CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. 1. The unsuccessful claimants filed present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act , 1987 (for short, “the Act”), assailing the order, dated 08.06.2017, passed in Claim Application No. OAA No.192 of 2010 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench (for short, “the Tribunal”), rejecting their claim for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest for a case of death. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts relating to the present appeal in a nutshell are as follows: (a) The claimants two in number, who are father and mother of deceased S. Nagaraju, preferred claim under Section 16 of the Act seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest. Their unmarried son met with untoward incident of accident of fall from train on 06.12.2009 at Lingampally Railway Station. He stated to have come to the said Station along with his brother, after purchasing platform ticket and got boarded his brother in train No.2748 – Palanadu Express on platform No.5, before the train started to move, he deboarded onto platform, in the process, he accidentally slipped and fell down and thereby the train moved off over him, resultantly, he died on spot. The deadbody was later noticed by Keyman, who reported the same to Station Superintendent, who in turn, reported the same to Government Railway Police (“G.R.P.”), accordingly, crime was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. (b) The respondent Railways filed written statement denying the manner in which incident happened and that the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c) or Section 124-A of the Indian Railways Act , 1989. It is further denied that the deceased possessed any documentary proof to show that he had platform ticket, inasmuch as even the inquest report also did not mention that the deceased possessed platform ticket at the time of death, though certain other articles were found. It was further denied that even brother of deceased, who travelled by Palanadu Express on that day, did not produce any ticket, therefore, the assertion that both deceased and his brother came to Lingampally railway station on the said day was clearly untrue and false. It was further denied that even brother of deceased, who travelled by Palanadu Express on that day, did not produce any ticket, therefore, the assertion that both deceased and his brother came to Lingampally railway station on the said day was clearly untrue and false. Further, it is also stated that while train departed from station at 14.20 hours, the deadbody came to be noticed only at 16.30 hours, which is more than two hours, therefore, it was unbelievable no one has noticed lying of a deadbody for such a longer period, therefore, the occurrence of accident was not on account of slip and fall during deboarding of Palanadu express. (d) Based on the aforesaid pleadings available on record, the Tribunal has framed following issues: “1. Whether the application is maintainable? 2. Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased? 3. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 4. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident? 5. Whether the applicants are entitled to the compensation as claimed by them in the application? 6. To what relief?” (e) In support of the claim, father of deceased was examined as AW.1 and brother as AW.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of Railways, Keyman was examined as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 Divisional Railway Manager Report. (f) Issues 3 and 4 came to be first dealt with by Tribunal, which essentially related to whether deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question and that he died as a result of untoward incident. Considering the evidence adduced by claimants and also the railways, ultimately, the Tribunal came to conclusion that as the platform ticket claimed to be purchased by deceased was not produced, he was found to be travelling without ticket and the evidence of AW.2, brother of deceased, was not given any credence and accordingly, decision was arrived at that claimants have failed to demonstrate that it was an untoward incident falling within the purview of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Indian Railways Act . In view of the aforesaid findings, Tribunal felt that it was unnecessary to go into issues 1 and 2 and issues 5 and 6 were rejected. Assailing the same, present appeal is filed. 4. In view of the aforesaid findings, Tribunal felt that it was unnecessary to go into issues 1 and 2 and issues 5 and 6 were rejected. Assailing the same, present appeal is filed. 4. Heard Sri Inampudi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned Central Government Counsel, for respondent Railways. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that when there is a clear pleading in the claim that brother of deceased had purchased both tickets for himself and also platform ticket for his brother, supported by evidence of brother as AW.2 along with his ticket under Ex.A5, the initial burden on claimants to show that deceased was bona fide passenger and died within the premises of railway station stands discharged and that now burden shifts on the Railways to disprove the same, which crucial aspect has been clearly ignored by the Tribunal, therefore, the findings of the Tribunal that claimants have not established conclusively that it was a case of untoward incident is clearly perverse. He further contended that Ex.R.1 Divisional Railway Manager Report, dated 06.05.2011, came to be issued for an incident happened on 06.12.2009, which was immediately reported to Station Superintendent and in turn to G.R.P. Police, who registered Ex.A1 FIR, which apparently is beyond the period of 60 days, therefore, could not have been taken into consideration to be a valid report falling within the meaning of Rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, hence, the same could not have been given any credence to disprove the version of claimants. In support of the submission that mere absence of ticket with the deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger and that by filing affidavit of relevant facts, the initial burden on claimants gets discharged and, thereafter, burden shifts on Railway to rebut the same, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 : 2018 ACJ 1441 and Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 656 . Further, on standard of rebuttal required to disprove that deceased passenger was having a valid ticket after filing of affidavit and testification by one of the witnesses, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kamukayi v. Union of India, (2023) 19 SCC 116 . 6. Opposing the aforesaid submissions, on the other hand, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the Railways supported the impugned order by contending that the Tribunal has upon evaluation of entire evidence on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that the claimants have miserably failed to establish that the deceased possessed platform ticket meaning thereby to be a bona fide passenger for the purpose of claiming the benefit of Section 123(c)(2) r/w. Section 124-A of the Indian Railways Act , 1989, to be an untoward incident. He further submitted that the evidence of RW.1 Keyman clearly testified that body was found at 16.30 hours and the same has been later intimated to the concerned officers for enquiry by registering incident and after enquiry, under Ex.R.1, report was furnished which clearly indicated that the deceased did not possess any railway ticket much less platform ticket as claimed and that it was a self-inflicted case, therefore, the Tribunal, rightly appreciating the said evidence, has rejected the claim in-toto. 7. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of both the learned counsel. 8. The important aspects required to be kept in mind for the purpose of deciding the claims falling under Section 16 of the Act are whether the injured or deceased falls within the definition of bona fide passenger, and if so, what is the degree of proof and equally, on whom the burden lies to establish such relevant facts, and whether the accident occurred on account of untoward incident. Law on these aspects is no more res integra and fairly settled. 9. In Rina Devi ’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering whether presence of a body near railway track is enough to maintain a claim qua the definition of passenger and also dealing with the aspect of discharge of burden of proof, held as follows: “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. 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. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Doli Rani Saha ’s case following the aforesaid judgment, held as follows: “15. From the recapitulation of the various judicial pronouncements leading to the present appeal, it can be seen that the primary issue is whether the deceased was travelling on the train in question. In Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 198, a two-Judge Bench of this Court considered the question of the party on which the burden of proof will lie in cases where the body of the deceased is found on railway premises. This Court held that the initial burden would be on the claimant, which could be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. Once the claimant did so, the burden would then shift to the Railways. Significantly, it also held that the mere absence of a ticket would not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The relevant extract from the ruling of the Court is reproduced below: (SCC p. 588, para 29) “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. 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 supplied) 16. In the present case, the appellant had duly filed an affidavit stating the facts and adverting to the report arising from the investigation conducted by the respondent, which showed that the deceased was travelling on the train and that his death was caused by a fall during the course of his travel. The burden of proof then shifted to the Railways, which has not discharged its burden. Therefore, the presumption that the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the train in question was not rebutted.” 11. Coming to the aspect of whether principle of strict liability applies to the cases falling under the Indian Railways Act , the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rina Devi’ s case, held as under: “25. We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of “self-inflicted injury” would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on “no fault theory”. We may in this connection refer to the judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar, (2019) 12 SCC 398 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1443 : (2017) 13 Scale 652 laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on “no fault theory” under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar, (2019) 12 SCC 398 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1443 : (2017) 13 Scale 652 laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on “no fault theory” under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an “untoward incident” entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124-A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor.” 12. The requirement of conducting enquiry immediately after occurrence of incidents, enabling the Tribunal to decide the aspect of compensation, emanates from the scheme of Rules made under the Rules. Rule 7 of the said Rules postulates that once an incident has been reported by Station Superintendent, under Rule 6, the Officer of the Force is mandatorily to carry out investigation, which includes obtaining information about untoward incident after recording statement of additional witnesses if so required and in the process by collecting any other evidence required in the circumstances of the case, and shall submit the report to Divisional Security Commissioner of Force within 60 days. Once such report is submitted on time to the Divisional Security Commissioner, he shall, in turn, submit the same to the Divisional Railway Manager within 15 days thereafter, which shall aid the Tribunal to decide the claims. Language of Rule 7 came to be considered and interpreted by Kerala High Court in Union of India v. A. Geetha , 2018 ACJ 941 which followed the judgment of the Division Bench of the very same court, and observed in para.13 and 14 as under: “13. The dictum in the decision supra rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, of which one among us, was a constituent member, is also relevant in the context and is extracted hereinbelow:— “8. We have considered all the relevant inputs. To us it appears that Chap.13 of the Railways Act reflects the vibrant compassion of the legislature in favour of the victims of untoward incidents that take place during the operation of the Railways. Even though there is no specific liability known to law on established legal principles obliging the railways to compensate the victim of such untoward incidents, law declares that Railways shall compensate the victims. Even though there is no specific liability known to law on established legal principles obliging the railways to compensate the victim of such untoward incidents, law declares that Railways shall compensate the victims. More than enforcement of a legal right, the statutory provision recognizes compassion and concern which the Railway administration must show to the unfortunate victims of the untoward incidents. An anxious perusal of the relevant statutory provisions and the rules must convince that the framers of the statute and the rules did not reckon the proceedings as an adversarial litigative process at all. If there be any semblance of doubt on this aspect it will be appropriate to frequent oneself with the stipulations of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (as amended in 2007). R.7 to 10 clearly show that the burden is on the local police and the officers of the force to conduct an enquiry/investigation into the cause of the incident and come to appropriate conclusion. To us it appears that the provisions clearly reveal due recognition and acceptance of the helplessness of the claimants who may be far far away from the scene/venue of the incident and consequentially incapable of adducing very compelling evidence in support of their claim. The realistic acceptance of the plight of the victims is perfectly clear from the mechanism stipulated for enquiry/investigation under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003. The burden really is not placed entirely on the shoulders of the victims or claimants. But, the burden is placed on the shoulders of the Railway and its officials to conduct a proper enquiry to ascertain whether claimants are really entitled to amounts or not.” 14. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the applicants failed to discharge the burden to establish their claim would not sustain. As disclosed from the dictum, the burden is on the shoulders of the Railway and its officials and they have to discharge the same by conducting appropriate enquiry into the cause of the incident. In the case on hand, neither the Railway nor its Officials seem to have conducted an enquiry of the nature and it is highly improper for them to blame the claimants for their inaction.” 13. In the case on hand, neither the Railway nor its Officials seem to have conducted an enquiry of the nature and it is highly improper for them to blame the claimants for their inaction.” 13. Further, even the Hon’ble Apex Court considered Rule 7 of the Rules in Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. General Manager, South East Central Railway , 2018 ACJ 1460 and observed as follows: “3. Though Rule 27 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) mandates the Railway Authorities to investigate into such an untoward incident, admittedly, no such inquiry was conducted immediately after the incident. It is only when the appellants filed the claim before RCT on 27-2-2009 that investigation into the incident was ordered on 23-4-2009. According to the Railways, the said investigation revealed that the deceased de-trained from the moving train at D Cabin without stoppage of the train and invited the accident. The claim was rejected on the aforesaid basis and the aforesaid plea of the Railways was accepted by RCT resulting into the dismissal of the claim of the appellants. The appellants filed the appeal i.e. FAO No. 535 of 2013 challenging the aforesaid order of RCT. The High Court has dismissed [Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. South-East Central Railways, 2016 SCC OnLine Ori 1028] the same by cryptic and non-speaking order with the only observations that findings of the Tribunal in the impugned award and the reasons assigned in support of the same, do not warrant any interference. 4. It is in these circumstances, the appellants are before us in these proceedings via Article 136 of the Constitution. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that it is not even necessary to go into the issue as to whether it was the fault of the deceased or that he accidentally fell down. The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which warrants payment of compensation whenever an untoward incident occurs whether or not such an incident has occurred by any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration. The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, which warrants payment of compensation whenever an untoward incident occurs whether or not such an incident has occurred by any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration. Going by the aforesaid provisions and in the peculiar facts of this case, where no inquiry as mandated by the Rules was conducted immediately after the incident had occurred, we are of the view that the appellants shall be entitled to compensation payable under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. We are informed that, at the material time, compensation payable under the said provision was Rs 4 lakhs.” 14. Considering aforementioned exposition of law, the facts of present case go to show that incident occurred on 06.12.2009 at about 14.20 p.m. As per the affidavit filed by the claimants and testimony of AW.2, platform ticket was purchased at 13.47 hours, besides ticket for his own journey from Lingampally to Guntur and further, it was averred that when train tried to leave the platform, the deceased while getting down got slipped and fell down and thereby train ran over him, causing his death. These assertions by way of affidavit and testimony of brother of deceased clearly demonstrate that they have discharged the initial burden of proof cast on them. The burden of proof then shifts to Railways. The Railways have, in turn examined RW.1 keyman, who spoke that he noticed deadbody on track at 3.30 p.m. and has intimated the same to higher authorities and further that in the inquest report, they could not find any platform ticket. He has tried to justify that the incident was a self-inflicted and not untoward incident based on the report marked under Ex.R1. The Tribunal has now proceeded on the basis that the claimants have not discharged their initial burden of proof, therefore, it did not even venture to see that the rebuttal evidence adduced by Railways to disprove the claim. Finding of the Tribunal that claimants have not discharged the burden of proof is clearly perverse, inasmuch as they were only required to state by way of affidavit that the deceased had possessed platform ticket and the accident occurred within the railway premises, which claimants have demonstrated. 15. Finding of the Tribunal that claimants have not discharged the burden of proof is clearly perverse, inasmuch as they were only required to state by way of affidavit that the deceased had possessed platform ticket and the accident occurred within the railway premises, which claimants have demonstrated. 15. Now to see whether Railways have rebutted aforesaid evidence, the testimony of RW.1 and the report under Ex.R1 required to be considered. RW.1 except for stating that he noticed deadbody at 3.30 p.m. and the inquest report did not reveal deceased possessing platform ticket, nothing much credible and useful evidence was adduced. The report also suggested that no platform ticket was recovered along with deadbody, however, a vague statement was made that it was a self- inflicting case. The said evidence, in opinion of this Court, would not be sufficient to repel the evidence of claimants. The report, marked under Ex.R1, also cannot be given much weight inasmuch as the same was prepared only on 06.05.2011, which is beyond 60 days, as mandated under Rule 7 of the Rules. The occurrence of incident within railway station is not denied, and in the absence of any cogent evidence to disprove that deceased did not possess platform ticket, the claim ought not to have been rejected by the Tribunal. 16. In view of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as mentioned above, it is clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died in an untoward incident that took place on 06.11.2009 while trying to deboard the train 2748 Palanadu Express and as he being a bona fide passenger, the claimants are entitled to claim compensation. 17. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside and the Appeal stands allowed by allowing the claim of compensation. The appellants are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing of the claim application till its realisation. It is made clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000, then the appellants shall be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. Aforesaid amount of compensation is directed to be paid by the respondent Railways within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000, then the appellants shall be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. Aforesaid amount of compensation is directed to be paid by the respondent Railways within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any in this case, shall stand closed