JUDGMENT : GANESH RAM MEENA, J. 1. The present civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant/non-claimant under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act of 1987’) against the Judgment and award dated 22.07.2021 passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (for short ‘the Railway Tribunal’) in OA-II-154/2017, Bhagchand Vs. Union of India , whereby the original application filed by the respondent/ claimant was partly allowed and Rs.5,60,000/- has been awarded as a compensation in his favour along-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award till the actual date of depositing of the decreetal amount with the Additional Registrar. 2. The facts borne out from the pleadings are that the respondent/claimant- Bhagchand filed an original application before the Railway Tribunal mentioning therein that on 10.10.2008 he was to commence his journey ex. Phulera to Jaipur by Train No. 4312 for which he purchased a valid second class railway journey ticket. When he boarded in the general coach in the said train, the train suddenly started moving with a jerk, as a result thereof he lost his balance and accidentally fell down from the moving train. Due to the fall from the moving train, he suffered amputation of left arm above the elbow besides multiple injuries to other parts of the body. The claimant further mentioned that he shifted to Government Hospital, Phulera from where after rendering him first-aid service, he was referred to the SMS Hospital, Jaipur. At SMS Hospital, Jaipur, he was operated upon and his left arm was amputated above the elbow. It was also stated that the SHO Government Railway Police, Phulera on receipt of information about this mishap, made an entry in Rapat Roznamcha Aam. The claimant further mentioned in his original application that the relevant railway journey ticket which he possessed at the material time, was lost during the course of incident and treatment. He was a bonafide purchaser of the said train at the time of occurrence of the incident. And claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-. 3. After receipt of notice, the Railway Department filed written statement of denial. He was a bonafide purchaser of the said train at the time of occurrence of the incident. And claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-. 3. After receipt of notice, the Railway Department filed written statement of denial. In the written statement the Railway Department stated that the present claim application has been filed by the claimant unnecessarily with an intention to get undue monetary benefits as he was not a bonafide passenger at the relevant time as no ticket was recovered from him. It was also stated that in the written statement that the alleged incident is not covered under the definition of untoward incident within the meaning of section 123(c) of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989 (for short ‘the Act of 1989’). The claimant suffered injuries due to his own negligence and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Railway Tribunal framed four issues including the relief which are quoted as under:- “1. Whether the applicant was travelling on a valid railway journey ticket and was a bonafide passenger of the train in question at the relevant time? 2. Whether the alleged incident does not fall under the definition of Section 123 (c) (2) of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989 and the Railway Administration is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicant? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation as claimed under Para-16 of the claim application? 4. What relief?” 5. The Railway Tribunal after hearing Partly allowed the original appeal and passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, this civil misc. appeal. 6. Mr. P.C. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ non-claimant submits that since the respondent/ claimant was trying to board in the train which was in movement and therefore the said incident would not be covered under the provisions of section 123(c) of the Act of 1989. He also submits that the respondent/ claimant at the time of the alleged accident was in the employment of the Railways and at the time of boarding in the train he was neither having a valid railway pass nor a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers and therefore, he is not entitled for any claim in view of the provisions of Section 124A of the Act of 1989 and the explanation given there-under. 7. 7. Counsel for the appellant/ non-claimant further submits that the findings and the observations of the learned Tribunal are based on surmises and conjectures without there being any evidence to the effect that the respondent/ claimant was having a valid ticket for travelling in a train. He further submits that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the averments made in the written statement and the pleadings adduced on behalf of the appellant/non-claimant. 8. Mr. Raghav Sharma on behalf of Mr. Ajay Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent/ claimant submits that the learned Tribunal has passed the award after having taken into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the trustworthy evidence available on the record including the affidavit of the claimant. He further submits that the respondent /claimant met with an accident while he was boarding in the train after purchasing a ticket for travelling in the train and since he fell down from the train because of its sudden movement, as a result he sustained serious injuries. After the alleged incident, the respondent/ claimant was taken to the hospital for treatment. Counsel also submits that the ticket might have lost during the period he remained under treatment in the hospital. The issues No. 1 and 2 framed by the Tribunal are there as regards submissions of the appellant. 9. Considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the record of the claim petition and the evidence therein. 10. The respondent/claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal with the specific averments that on 10.10.2008 he after purchasing the ticket for travelling, boarded in Train No.4312-Bareli Express at Phulera Station. However, because of a sudden movement of the train the claimant became imbalanced and fell down and as a result he sustained injuries. The respondent/ claimant was taken to the Government Hospital, Phulera and after primary treatment he was referred to the SMS Hospital, Jaipur, where he undergone for operation also and remained hospitalized for several days. 11. The appellant/ non-claimant has denied the averments made in the claim petition that since no valid ticket was found from the respondent/ non-claimant, he could not be allowed the compensation under the provisions of the Act of 1989. 12. 11. The appellant/ non-claimant has denied the averments made in the claim petition that since no valid ticket was found from the respondent/ non-claimant, he could not be allowed the compensation under the provisions of the Act of 1989. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kamrunnissa vs. Union of India , reported in (2019) 12 SCC 391, has observed as under:- “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.” 13. On perusal of the record, the Court finds the Rojnamcha Aam dated 10.10.2008 of GRP Police Station, Phulera wherein at 8:00 AM a report has been recorded that ASM Phulera Station on telephone has informed that a person got injured by the Bareli Express train and a Head Constable Ram Swaroop No.65 was sent to the place of incident. After returning from the place of incident, the Head Constable Ram Swaroop reported that the respondent/ claimant has sustained injuries in the accident by Bareli Express train and he has been taken to the Government Hospital, Phulera. It was also stated that after being informed the family members of the respondent/claimant, they also reached at Government Hospital, Phulera. It was also stated that the Medical Officer considering the seriousness of the respondent/ claimant, referred him to the SMS Hospital, Jaipur. 14. On taking into consideration the submissions made in the claim petition so also the Rojnamcha Rapat of daily Rojnamcha of GRP Police Station, Phulera, this fact is proved that the respondent/ claimant got injured in an accident by falling from the train i.e. Bareli Express on 10.10.2008. 15. 14. On taking into consideration the submissions made in the claim petition so also the Rojnamcha Rapat of daily Rojnamcha of GRP Police Station, Phulera, this fact is proved that the respondent/ claimant got injured in an accident by falling from the train i.e. Bareli Express on 10.10.2008. 15. Counsel appearing for the appellant / non-claimant has referred the judgment of Karnataka High Court delivered in the case of Union of India v. Lakshmi & Ors., reported in 2014 ACJ 2505 . He has referred para 8 of the said judgment, which is quoted as under:- “ 8. Now coming to the finding on issue No. 3 regarding untoward incident, as stated in Section 123(c)(2) of RAILWAYS ACT is concerned, the word untoward incident as per the dictionary meaning is an act which is accidental by its nature, it is not definite and it is not expected in normal circumstances. Now, with this definition if accident which has resulted in the death of R. Selvaraj is analysed, admittedly, he tried to board the train which was already moving and had gained momentum. In normal circumstances, any person would not risk his life in trying to get into moving train, which is leaving platform and has gained momentum. If anybody attempt to board moving train, it is nothing short of a suicidal act;. Suicidal act cannot be construed as untoward incident under any circumstance. In a given situation when all parameters arc normal i.e., train is stationed or is about to start, at that time if a person trying to get into train and for some reason beyond his control he either falls down or an accident would take place resulting in bodily injury or death to him, should be construed as untoward incident and not a daredevil attempt to jump into moving train, which would result in his falling down and corning under the wheels of train ultimately resulting in his bodily injury or death. The later part by any stretch of imagination cannot be termed as untoward incident.” 16. Counsel for the respondent/ claimant has referred the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi , reported in 2019 (3) SCC 572 . In the case of Rina Devi (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:- “ 25. Counsel for the respondent/ claimant has referred the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi , reported in 2019 (3) SCC 572 . In the case of Rina Devi (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed 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 [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. 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. Re : (iii) Burden of proof when body found on railway premises — Definition of passenger 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 [Raj Kumari v. Union of India, 1992 SCC OnLine MP 96 : 1993 ACJ 846 ] referring to the scheme of the 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 bona fide passenger. The Railway Administration has special knowledge whether ticket was issued or not. The 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. The 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, the Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh [Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 101 : 2015 ACJ 171 ] 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 the 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 [Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 101 : 2015 ACJ 171 ] , SCC OnLine Del para 4) “4. … (ii) In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant claimants is totally misconceived. The initial onus in my opinion always lies with the appellant 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 bona fide passenger because no such negative onus is placed upon the Railways either under the RAILWAYS ACT or the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and the 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 bona fide passenger because no such negative onus is placed upon the Railways either under the RAILWAYS ACT or the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and the 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 the 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 learned Single Judge of this Court in Pyar Singh v. Union of India [Pyar Singh v. 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 [Union of India v. Leelamma, 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 903 : (2009) 1 KLT 914 ] .” 27. In Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi [ Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi v. Union of India , 2011 SCC OnLine AP 828 : 2013 ACJ 1061 ] the 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 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. 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 AW 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 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 [Kamrunnissa v. Union of India, (2019) 12 SCC 391 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 304] , 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. 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 Paras VII and VIII 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.” 17. The facts of the present case are that the respondent / claimant fell down from a train, sustained injuries and was taken to the Government Hospital, Phulera and his condition being serious, referred to the SMS Hospital, Jaipur, where he undergone for operation and remained hospitalized for various days. In such circumstances, the ticket for travelling in the train might have lost. The respondent/ claimant has admitted that after the accident he was taken to the Hospital where he remained hospitalized for many days and lost the ticket. The appellant/ non-claimant has failed to come out with any evidence which could lead to the fact that the respondent/claimant has not purchased the ticket for travelling in the train. The respondent/ claimant has admitted that after the accident he was taken to the Hospital where he remained hospitalized for many days and lost the ticket. The appellant/ non-claimant has failed to come out with any evidence which could lead to the fact that the respondent/claimant has not purchased the ticket for travelling in the train. In view of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in the case of Rina Devi (supra) and taking into consideration the facts of the present case and in view of the fact that the provisions in regard to compensation under the Act of 1989 are the beneficial provisions, this Court can safely held that the present case is covered under the clause of ‘untoward accident’ and the respondent/ claimant was a passenger and thus, he is entitled for compensation. The Court is satisfied that onus was discharged by the respondent/ claimant that he was a bonafide passenger and accordingly, he is entitled for compensation. It is a well settled law that in case of beneficial legislation as regards the compensation, the claimant is not required to prove the facts beyond reasonable doubt as is required under the criminal law so as to hold guilty someone for the offence. The claimant has submitted his affidavit with specific averments to prove the facts regarding the accident and purchasing the ticket for travelling in the train and no otherwise evidence was adduced by the appellant. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kamukayi & Ors. vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 3799 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.17062/2022) decided on 16.05.2023 has observed as under:- “ 9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of provisions of the RAILWAYS ACT , in particular Chapter XIII which deals with the liability of Railway Administration for death and injury to passengers due to accidents. Section 123 (c) defines “untoward incident”. As per clause (2), the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers would be an untoward incident. As per Section 124A, the Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation on account of untoward incident. Section 123 (c) defines “untoward incident”. As per clause (2), the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers would be an untoward incident. As per Section 124A, the Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation on account of untoward incident. When in the course of working of railway, an untoward incident occurs then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration as such, would entitle a passenger who has been injured or died. The claim can be maintained to recover the damages, and notwithstanding anything contained in any other law the Railway is liable to pay compensation as prescribed for such untoward incident. By the explanation of the said Section clarifying about ‘passenger’, it would include a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident. 10. This court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) has explained the burden of proof when body of a passenger is found on railway premises. While analysing the said issue, this Court has considered the judgement of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raj Kumari v. Union of India and the judgements of Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India, Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi vs. Union of India and also considered the judgement of this Court in Kamrunnissa vs. Union of India and in para 29 concluded as thus- “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.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anita Sharma & Ors. 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.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anita Sharma & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos.4010-4011/2020 (arising out of SLP (C) No.32011-32012/2018 decided on 08.12.2020 has given similar observations as under:- “ 22 . Equally, we are concerned over the failure of the High Court to be cognizant of the fact that strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non-examination of some best eye-witnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant’s version is more likely than not true. A somewhat similar situation arose in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz wherein this Court reiterated that: “7. It would hardly need a mention that the plea of negligence on the part of the first respondent who was driving the pick-up van as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the learned Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and certainly not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Bimla Devi v. Himanchal RTC [ (2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010)1 SCC (Cri) 1101])” (emphasis supplied) 18. After making an extensive scrutiny of the evidence available on the record and the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal, the Court finds no error or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal and there is no scope of interference in the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal. 19. Accordingly, the misc. appeal filed by the appellant/ non- appellant is dismissed. 20. The stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand dismissed. 21. The Registry is directed to send back the record of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.