JUDGMENT : JITENDRA JAIN, J. 1. This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 31 st January, 2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, whereby the application made by the legal heirs of the deceased came to be rejected on the ground that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, because no ticket was found and the deceased was trespassing the railway lines and was hit by a moving train. Therefore, after looking at the injuries, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that it is not a case of falling down from the train, but negligence of the deceased in crossing the railway lines. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the Appellants and Respondent. 3. The issues which arise for my consideration are :- Issue (1): Whether deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling by train? Issue (2): Whether the deceased died by falling from the train or was knocked down by moving train? 4. On 29 th October, 2012 at around 20.30 hours, the deceased was travelling from his office from Grant Road to Shahad via. Dadar. The untoward incident happened between the Kanjurmarg and Bhandup Railway Station. The deceased was initially admitted to Rajawadi Hospital and then taken to Sion Hospital at 2.00 am. The deceased succumbed to his injury on 04 th November, 2012. Thereafter, a claim was lodged with the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and interest at the rate of 18%. The wife and nephew of the deceased filed their affidavits in evidence. The wife was cross-examined. Respondent did not lead any evidence in support of their stand. 5. At the outset, the Appellants submit that in paragraph 8 of the impugned order the Tribunal has wrongly recorded name of dependent No.1 as Bhairulal Dhulchand Jain instead of Jaishree Gondake. From records the said contention appears to be correct. 6. The first issue which requires to be considered is whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger, since no ticket was found, although ATM and other documents were found from possession of the deceased at the time of the accident. The learned counsel for the respondent states that in the claim and in the affidavit of the wife of the deceased, there is a reference to monthly pass. Whereas, in the cross-examination she has stated that the deceased was having second class ticket. This contradiction shows that he was not a bonafide passenger. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent states that in the claim and in the affidavit of the wife of the deceased, there is a reference to monthly pass. Whereas, in the cross-examination she has stated that the deceased was having second class ticket. This contradiction shows that he was not a bonafide passenger. 7. In my view, the words used in the cross-examination and affidavit in evidence and the statement of claim cannot be read like statute. In the statement of claim, it is specifically averred that he was holding monthly pass. In the affidavit in evidence of the wife of the deceased she has reiterated the same. In the cross-examination, the wife accepts that he was having a second class ticket. The phrases “monthly pass” and “ticket” are used interchangeably in Mumbai and when in the cross-examination it is stated that he was having a second class ticket, it cannot be inferred that he was travelling without ticket. It is also important to note that the deceased was a government employee working in Post Office and, therefore, it is incomprehensible that a government employee would be travelling to his work place and back home without any ticket. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent to contend that he was not a bonafide passenger and, therefore, Tribunal was justified in giving its findings, cannot be accepted. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision in the case of Kamrunnissa vs. Union of India, (2019) 12 SCC 391 and more particularly paragraph 8. In this case in paragraph 7, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has narrated the condition of the body after the accident and after referring to paragraphs 7 and 8 of inquest report have come to a conclusion that he was not in possession of a ticket. The facts of the abovementioned judgment clearly demonstrate that it was a case where a person committed suicide. The facts of the present case before me are not the same. Furthermore, this decision was rendered on 01 st February, 2017. The facts of the abovementioned judgment clearly demonstrate that it was a case where a person committed suicide. The facts of the present case before me are not the same. Furthermore, this decision was rendered on 01 st February, 2017. Subsequent thereto, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi , (2019) 3 SCC 572 , which was decided on 09 th May, 2018, i.e. subsequent to Kamrunnissa case (supra), held after considering Kamrunnissa case (supra) that mere absence of ticket cannot negative the claim that he was not a bonafide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit. 9. In the instant case, the wife of the deceased has filed an affidavit and in cross-examination also she has confirmed the same. Therefore, in my view and looking at the fact that the deceased was a government employee, the submission made and the findings given by the Tribunal on the issue of bonafide passenger cannot be accepted. 10. The next issue raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is based on the nature of injury. It cannot be said that he fell down from the train as contended by the appellant. The nature of injury is such that in all probability while crossing the railway line he was hit by the train and, therefore, for such trespassing and negligence the respondent cannot be held responsible. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the incident. 11. The Station Master’s Report dated 29 th October, 2012 has ticked the box which contains hit by unknown train while trespassing. If there are no eye witnesses, then how the Station Master could have certified that he was hit by unknown train while trespassing. If a person is hit by a moving train, then it is not only the duty of the Motor Man, but it is his obligation that he should inform the Station Master of immediate next station, so that the Station Master can go to the incident place. In this case, there is no such statement on behalf of the respondent before the Tribunal that the Motor Man informed the Station Master that a person has been hit while he was driving the train. 12. In this case, there is no such statement on behalf of the respondent before the Tribunal that the Motor Man informed the Station Master that a person has been hit while he was driving the train. 12. Secondly, there is no material on record to show that there was an entry and exit on the sides of the railway line, by which the persons can enter the railway line from one side to cross over to other side. Therefore, the submission made that the deceased was hit by moving train while crossing the railway line also cannot be accepted. 13. Thirdly, the respondent has not examined any medical expert for making out a case that the nature of injuries are such, which would result into only conclusion that the deceased was hit by a moving train any not by falling down. The respondent ought to have examined a medical expert. Having not done the same and the Tribunal not being an expert body to give its opinion on medical injury, the findings of the Tribunal on this count are perverse. 14. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the deceased had an injury on the back of the head and his left hand was severely injured shows that he died not on account of falling from the train, but by a moving train hitting him. The fact that the backside of the head was injured gives an indication that when a person falls from a moving train, it is possible that the back side of the head is severely injured. If a moving train hits a person then other parts of the body also get injured, but in this case as per English translation, only the left hand palm and the head injury is found. Therefore, the reasoning given by the Tribunal on this count cannot be accepted. 15. It is an undisputed and known fact that in the evening it is very difficult to board a train on Central Railway Line if not boarded from starting point. In this case, deceased boarded train from Dadar to go to his house at Shahad. It is to avoid these accidents that Railways are now contemplating automatic closure of the door in non-A.C. local trains. 16. The efficacy of the Station Master’s Report was examined by this Court in the case of Keshu Shankarlal Giri & Ors. In this case, deceased boarded train from Dadar to go to his house at Shahad. It is to avoid these accidents that Railways are now contemplating automatic closure of the door in non-A.C. local trains. 16. The efficacy of the Station Master’s Report was examined by this Court in the case of Keshu Shankarlal Giri & Ors. vs. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom. 14104. In paragraph 14, this Court observed that since the Station Master was not examined by the railways, the report cannot be accepted as gospel truth to hold that the deceased was hit by a running local while crossing the railway track. A very similar issue arose before me in the case of Smt. Dipali Suresh Thorat & Ors. vs. Union of India, through General Manager, Central Railway , First Appeal No. 817/2018 decided on 16.09.2025 and in my view, the ratio of this decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case before me. 17. Therefore, the impugned order dated 31 st January, 2018 is quashed and set aside. The Appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.4 lakhs alongwith interest at 6% p.a. till the payment is actually made. If the aggregate amount of the claim and the interest works out to more than Rs.8 lakhs then the total claim should be restricted to Rs.8 lakhs and the said Rs.8 lakhs should be divided in equal proportion amongst the four appellants. The four appellants/applicants to furnish their bank account details to the respondent and the respondent within eight weeks, thereafter, will transfer the proportionate amount to the respective accounts of the appellants. 18. The appeal is allowed in above terms.