JUDGMENT : B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act , 1987, assailing the judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench in O.A.II (U) No.67 of 2013 dated 04.04.2018. 2. Appellant is the applicant and Respondent is the respondent in O.A.II (U) No.67 of 2013. 3. It is stated in the application that the appellant-applicant went to his native place on his personal work and started return journey in the night hours on 09.03.2013, purchased a journey ticket for travelling from Kazipet to Mancherial and boarded Nagpur Passenger train at Kazipet. In the middle of the way, the applicant went to bathroom and when he was washing his face at the wash basin near the door of the train, the train had given jerks while changing the main line to loop line at Raghavapuram Railway Station, as a result the door hit the appellant-applicant due to which he was imbalanced and accidently fallen down from the running train near Raghavapuram Railway Station. The left leg of the appellant-applicant went under the running wheels and it was cut off on the spot. Appellant-Applicant has received crush injury on his right foot and also received other injuries, the train has left without noticing the incident. Appellant-applicant has sought help and contacted his relatives over cell phone. The Pointsman of Raghavapuram Railway Station noticed the injured applicant in the intervening night of 09 th /10 th March, 2013 and he was referred to Singareni Collieries Company Hospital, RG-1 Area, Godavarikhani in 108 Ambulance. Appellant-applicant left leg was amputated below the knee and claimed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition (30.03.2013) till the date of realisation. 4. Respondent has filed his written statement and contended that the appellant-applicant is put to strict proof of the accident with documentary evidence to show that due to jerks of the train, he slipped and fell down, it clearly shows that none of the co-passengers unnoticed is untenable and only due to the injured careless and gross negligence attitude the incident has occurred. The respondent has taken utmost care, security and safety in all aspects while carrying passengers in the train and there is no negligence on the part of the railways whatsoever. The respondent has taken utmost care, security and safety in all aspects while carrying passengers in the train and there is no negligence on the part of the railways whatsoever. Appellant-Applicant is put to strict proof that he was a bonafide passenger and holding a valid ticket at the time of accident. Respondent further contended that the injured while catching the running train, slipped and fell down due to his gross negligence, hence the amount of compensation claimed @ Rs.4,00,000/- with interest is untenable and he is not entitled for the same. Divisional Railway Manager-SC has conducted a detailed report, the same is awaited and on receipt of the same, the respondent would like to file additional written statement when the better particulars come to their knowledge and prayed to dismiss the application. 5. The learned Railway Claims Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger of the train and sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident? 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation as prayed for and to what relief? 6. Appellant-applicant is examined as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. Respondent did not led any evidence but got marked Ex.R1. 7. The learned Tribunal after going through the evidence and the documents marked thereon has dismissed the application of the appellant-applicant holding that the injured-appellant-applicant is not shown to be a bonafide passenger, no compensation is payable to him under Section 124-A of The Railways Act . 8.1. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that the learned Tribunal ought to have seen that on 09.03.2013 the appellant- applicant was travelling from Kazipet to Mancherial in Nagpur Passenger train, he accidentally fell down in the middle of the way and received grievous injuries i.e., amputation of left leg below knee. The learned Tribunal ought to have seen that no witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondent but the DRM report is marked as Ex.R1. It is settled law that the author of the document should be examined or at least the Investigating Authority who conducted the investigation on behalf of DRM ought to have examined before the Tribunal. 8.2. The Tribunal ought to have seen that in case of loss of journey ticket the railways are liable to pay compensation. It is settled law that the author of the document should be examined or at least the Investigating Authority who conducted the investigation on behalf of DRM ought to have examined before the Tribunal. 8.2. The Tribunal ought to have seen that in case of loss of journey ticket the railways are liable to pay compensation. Appellant-applicant has discharged his initial burden and proved that he was travelling in the train by valid journey ticket. Counsel to substantiate his contention, has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Union of India Vs. Rina Devi, 2018 ACJ 1 441 and (2) Maram Ketha and Others Vs. Union of India, CMA No. 920 of 2019 dated 29.11.2024 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad 9. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts of the case by taking into consideration Ex.R1 and the statements recorded during the enquiry and further contended that no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the Appeal. 10. Heard learned counsel on either side, perused the material. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the judgment passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench in O.A.II (U) No.67 of 2013 dated 04.04.2018 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it requires interference of this Court? 12. It is worth mentioning that the respondent has filed his written statement on 19.12.2013 before the DRM report, which is stated in the written statement at Para No.12 that “the report is awaited” on receipt of the same the respondent would like to file written statement when better particulars come to their knowledge. No additional written statement is filed by the respondent after receipt of the report (Ex.R1). 13. Appellant-applicant in his cross-examination stated that the police has enquired him and recorded his statement and he has purchased the ticket from Kazipet to Mancherial and the expenditure incurred by him for the treatment is borne by his company and the train had heavy rush but no passenger pulled the alarm chain after the incident and the approximate time of the incident is about 11.00 P.M. and he cannot say at what time the Pointsman had approached him and also he cannot say how many trains have passed through the track. AW.1 denied the suggestion that he did not purchase the ticket. AW.1 denied the suggestion that he did not purchase the ticket. A suggestion is put by the respondent’s counsel that the cell phone of the appellant-applicant fell from the toilet, thereby he got down at Raghavapuram Station to pick up the same and the incident has occurred. Another suggestion is put to the appellant-applicant that he was in intoxicated condition and went down the train to search for his mobile phone. 14. It is worth mentioning that it is not the case of the respondent in the written statement that the appellant-applicant was in intoxicated condition and that his cell phone has fell down from the toilet, thereby he got down at Raghavapuram Station to pick up the same. The defence taken by the respondent in the written statement is that the appellant-applicant while catching the running train, slipped and fell down. 15. Ex.A1 is the GD Entry wherein the SS/RGPM given message to IPF/RDME and SI-Government Railway Police/RDM stating that “one male person fallen down between up and down line towards PDPL and near RGPM Station Building, his age is about 45 years and his left leg was cut off and injured. Duty Pointsmen (1) K.Satyanarayana (2) P.Sambha Shiva Rao observed the injured person by name G.Yellaiah and was shifted in 108 Ambulance. Ex.A2 is the Form of intimation for Medico - Legal Case, Singareni Collieries Company Hospitals. Ex.A3 is the message of SS/RGPM to IPF/RDM and SI/Government Railways Police/RDM. Ex.A4 is the Discharge Card of the appellant-applicant pertaining to Singareni Collieries Group of Hospitals. Ex.A5 is the Discharge Card of Singareni Collieries Area Hospital. Ex.A6 is the O.P. Ticket of Singareni Collieries Company Limited. Ex.A7 is the photograph of the injured appellant-applicant. Ex.A8 is the Aadhar card of the appellant-applicant and Ex.A9 is the Identity Card. 16. Ex.R1 is the Divisional Railway Manager Report dated 09.11.2013. The report at Page 2 says that on receipt of the information GRP/RDM made an entry in the General Diary dated 10.03.2013 and took up the investigation. In the succeeding Para it is stated that the file is received by this office on 13.08.2013 and Sri B.Janardhan, ASIPF/RDM has been entrusted with the inquiry. It is worth mentioning that accident took place on 09.03.2013 and GD entry is made on 10.03.2013 and the file is received in the office on 13.08.2013 i.e., after a period of 5 months. It is worth mentioning that accident took place on 09.03.2013 and GD entry is made on 10.03.2013 and the file is received in the office on 13.08.2013 i.e., after a period of 5 months. B.Janardhan has examined Md.Madar Saheb, Guard of the Train No.57136 of Nagpur passenger who was on duty on 09.03.2013 and his statement was recorded on 22.08.2013. M.Krishna Murthy, Loco Pilot of the Train is examined on 03.09.2013. B.Samba Shiva Rao, Pointsman is examined on 11.09.2013. R.K.Meena, Deputy SS is also examined on 11.09.2013 and the appellant-applicant statement is recorded on 06.11.2013. 17. The statements of the witnesses recorded by B.Janardhan are reproduced by the learned Tribunal in Para No.10 (a-d) of its judgment. 18.1. The statement of the appellant-applicant recorded by B.Janardhan on 06.11.2013 states that he has purchased the railway ticket and his statement is in consonance with his application. In the statement three questions were put to the appellant-applicant which are in the question and answer form which are reproduced as under for brevity: 18.2. Appellant has answered ‘no’ for question No.2 that his cell phone fell down from the train and to pick up the same he went underneath the train due to which the incident occurred. In so far as question No.3 is concerned he stated that he purchased a ticket, due to his falling down from the train his ticket has got lost with that of his wallet. 19.1. In Union of India Vs. Rina Devi ’s case the issues fell for consideration before the Supreme Court are : i. Whether the quantum of compensation should be as per the prescribed rate of compensation as on the date of application/incident or on the date of order awarding compensation. ii. Whether principle of strict liability applies; iii. Whether presence of a body near the railway track is enough to maintain a claim; and iv. Rate of interest. 19.2. For the present Appeal Issue Nos.2 and 3 are relevant. In so far as issue No.2 (Application of principle of strict liability-concept of self inflicted injury) the Supreme Court observed at Para No.16.6 which reads as under: “16.6. 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. In so far as issue No.2 (Application of principle of strict liability-concept of self inflicted injury) the Supreme Court observed at Para No.16.6 which reads as under: “16.6. 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 judgment of this court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar, 2018 ACJ 1 (SC), 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 deboarding 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.” 19.3. In so far as issue No.3 (burden of proof when a body found on railway premises - Definition of passenger), the Supreme Court observed at Para No.17.4 which reads as under: “17.4. 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 bonafide 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 bonafide 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”. 20. In Maram ketha’s case 2 , the High Court has referred to Rina Devi’s case and also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kalandi Charan Sahoo and Another Vs. 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”. 20. In Maram ketha’s case 2 , the High Court has referred to Rina Devi’s case and also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kalandi Charan Sahoo and Another Vs. General Manager, South East Central Railway, 2019 12 SCC 387 in respect of inquiry to be conducted immediately by the railways as mandated in Rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, holding that “the absence of a ticket would not negative the claim that the deceased was a bonafide passenger unless the burden to prove the contrary was discharged by the railways. The railways failed to discharge the said burden by adducing oral and documentary evidence that the case falls under any of the exceptions provided under Section 124 of The Railways Act , 1989. 21. The respondent except marking Ex.R1-Divisional Railways Manager Report, failed to examine independent witnesses to support their contention. As stated supra file is received in the office of the railways on 13.08.2013 after five months of the accident and the witnesses statements were recorded on different dates in the month of August, September, 2013 and the statement of the appellant-applicant was recorded in the month of November, 2013. 22. In the statement of the appellant-applicant, he stated for question No.3 that he purchased a ticket but it was lost when he fell down from the train along with his wallet. 23. The initial burden placed on the appellant-applicant is proved by way of his evidence and it is the respondent who has to discharge his burden by leading oral and documentary evidence. 24. The Supreme Court in Rina Devi’s case 1 observed that mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bonafide passenger. The same view is taken in Maram Ketha’s case. 25. In view of the reasons stated supra, respondent failed to discharge their burden that the case falls any of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of The Railways Act . The decisions cited by the appellant’s counsel stated supra are squarely applicable to the case on hand. The same view is taken in Maram Ketha’s case. 25. In view of the reasons stated supra, respondent failed to discharge their burden that the case falls any of the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of The Railways Act . The decisions cited by the appellant’s counsel stated supra are squarely applicable to the case on hand. The learned Tribunal has lost sight of facts of the case and wrongly arrived at a conclusion that the appellant-applicant is not entitled for compensation as the appellant-applicant failed to discharge the initial onus lying on him. The order passed by the learned Tribunal requires interference of this Court as the same is perverse. 26. In the result, CMA is allowed and the judgment passed by Railways Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench in O.A.II (U) No.67 of 2013 dated 04.04.2018 is set aside and the appellant-applicant is awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with costs and interest @ 7% per annum from the date of accident. Respondent is hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment, on such deposit appellant-applicant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.