JUDGMENT : B. R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of Railway Tribunal Act assailing the judgment in O.A.II(U).No.292 of 2012 dated 23.02.2018 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench. 2. Appellants are the applicants and respondent is the sole respondent in O.A. 3.1. Appellants-applicants have filed the application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 r/w Section 124-A and 125 of Indian Railways Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs with interest for the death of E.Anil Kumar who is unmarried, alleged to have died in the accident fall from the train that occurred on 04.06.2012. 3.2. It is stated in the original application that on 04.06.2012, E.Anil Kumar along with his friends (1) R.Saikumar (2) B.Hariprasad (3) K. Saikumar purchased a passenger train journey ticket bearing No.09345095 from Khairtabad to Raigir and they boarded Train No.67264 Hyderabad-Warangal, Pushpull passenger in a General Compartment and left. E.Anil Kumar has informed his parents that he is going to Yadagiri Gutta to have Darshan of Lord Narasimha Swamy Temple. E.Anil Kumar has boarded the Train at Khairtabad Railway Station in the morning hours of 04.06.2012 and while travelling there was heavy rush of passengers in the Compartment. E.Anil Kumar suddenly slipped and fell down accidentally from the running train at K.M.No.195/22 in between Secunderabad-Lallaguda Railway Stations due to speed, jolt and sudden jerks of the running Train, in the result he sustained severe head injury and other multiple fatal injuries. The Train was stopped by the three fellow passenger friends of the deceased by pulling alarm chain, shifted him to Gandhi Hospital in an Auto with the help of Guard of the Train and some other Railway staff and admitted the injured as in-patient, he died while undergoing treatment in the early hours of 05.06.2012 at 3.00 A.M. 4. Respondent has filed written statement denying the allegations made in the application and further contended that there is no cause of action for the applicants as the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c) or Section 124-A of Indian Railways Act, 1989. The application is silent about the eyewitnesses. Respondent has filed written statement denying the allegations made in the application and further contended that there is no cause of action for the applicants as the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c) or Section 124-A of Indian Railways Act, 1989. The application is silent about the eyewitnesses. The alleged journey of the deceased is nothing but a fabricated story to gain unlawful benefit from the respondent and it is not a case of accidental fall from Train and the deceased might have committed suicide and prayed to dismiss the same. 5. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues : 1. Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question died as a result of an untoward incident? 3. Whether the applicants are entitled to the compensation as claimed by them in the application and to what relief? 6. Appellant No.1-applicant No.1 is examined as AW.1 and also examined AW.2-R.Sai Kumar, got marked Exs.A1 to A9. Respondent did not examine any witness but got marked Ex.R1 - Divisional Railway Manager Report. CW.1-N.Giri, CW.2-D Ramesh are examined as Court witnesses and got marked Ex.C1-CD file. 7. The learned Tribunal after analysing the evidence adduced by the parties arrived at a conclusion that the deceased was trying to board the running Train is clearly a misdeed or misadventure and abortive attempt made by him and the injuries are self- inflicted for which the respondent railway cannot be held liable and ultimately dismissed the O.A. 8.1. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal erroneously appreciated the applicability of the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act and erred in holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the ticket filed was a planted one and also erred in holding that the death of the deceased is not due to fall from the Train and does not come under “untoward incident”. 8.2. The Tribunal grossly erred in appreciating the evidence on record and discarded prima facie documents filed by the appellants. In support of his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Jameela and Others Vs. Union of India , 2010 ACJ 2453 (2) Union of India Vs. Rina Devi Indian Kanoon – http://indiankanoon.org/doc/94898543/, (3) K.Suneetha Vs. 8.2. The Tribunal grossly erred in appreciating the evidence on record and discarded prima facie documents filed by the appellants. In support of his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Jameela and Others Vs. Union of India , 2010 ACJ 2453 (2) Union of India Vs. Rina Devi Indian Kanoon – http://indiankanoon.org/doc/94898543/, (3) K.Suneetha Vs. Union of India Rev.CMP.No.1898 of 2011 in CMP No.7 of 2011 of the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 16.09.2011 , (4) Smt. P.Vijaya Laxmi & Others Vs. Union of India CMA.No.258 of 2019 dated 31.10.2023 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hydera (5) N.Kalamma & Others Vs. Union of India CMA No.625 of 2019 dated 16.02.2024 of the High Court for the and prayed to allow the Appeal and prayed to set aside the impugned order. 9. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly dismissed the Appeal, no interference is called for, prayed to dismiss the same. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants have filed their written arguments. 11. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material. 12. Now the point for consideration is : Whether the order passed by Railway Claims Tribunal in O.A.II(U).No.292 of 2012 dated 23.02.2018 suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it require interference of this Court or not? 13. Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 embodies a no-fault regime for “untoward incidents”, but compensation remains State of Telangana at Hyderabad predicated on the victim being a “passenger”. For present purposes, Explaination (ii) to Section 124-A would be relevant. It reads as follows: “Explanation (ii) – ‘passenger’ includes 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”. 14.1. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the railways must fail even after assuming everything in its favour – (See Jameela, (supra)). 14.2. 14.1. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the railways must fail even after assuming everything in its favour – (See Jameela, (supra)). 14.2. Untoward Incident: “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 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor”. Burden of Proof when body found on Railway premises: 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 : (See Rina Devi, (supra)). 14.3. In K.Suneetha, (supra) the High Court observed that “as per the inquest report at the time of conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 08.02.2006 at 7.00 A.M. the said ticket was seized by the Railway Police from the wearing apparel of the deceased”. 14.4. In P.Vijaya Laxmi,(supra) the High Court observed that “the dead body of the deceased was in possession of the journey ticket. Similar view is taken in N.Kalamma, (supra) 14.5. In the latest judgment of Rajni and another Vs union of India 2025 INSC 1201 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “the welfare statutes are governed by the principles of preponderance and probabilities, once the foundational facts of (i) possession or issuance of a valid ticket, and (ii) occurrence of accidental fall from a train, are established through credible material, the statutory presumption of bona fide travel must opearate in favour of the claimant”. 15. 15. The Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 states the manner in which the investigation has to be conducted. Rule 3 states about the Report about the untoward incident. Rule 7 states the conducting of investigation and submission of report by the Force (Railway Protection Force) and Sub Rule 2 states that the Officer of the Force shall complete the investigation within sixty days and submit a report to the Authority specified under Sub Rule 2 of Rule 10. Rule 8 states the conducting of investigation and submission of report by the police, Sub Rule 1 states that the police on receipt of the report under clause (iii) of Rule 6, shall immediately initiate investigation and prepare inquest report or injury report in accordance with the procedure laid down in Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 16. The evidence of AW.1 is the same with that of the main application. In his cross-examination he stated that his son-E.Anil Kumar informed him regarding his trip to Yadagiri Gutta along with his three friends i.e., R.Sai Kumar (AW.2), E.Sai Kumar and B.Hari Prasad and he was informed by R.Sai Kumar at 11.30 hours regarding his son’s accident and that was admitted in Gandhi Hospital. He along with his wife and relatives went to Gandhi Hospital, his son was not speaking by the time they reached as he was in Emergency Ward, died later on. 17.1. AW.2-R.Sai Kumar deposed that he along with the deceased Anil Kumar, B.Hari Prasad and K.Sai Kumar went to Khairtabad Railway Station in the morning hours of 04.06.2012 and E.Anil Kumar purchased a Group Passenger Train Journey Ticket bearing No.09345095 from Khairtabad to Raigir for four of them and they boarded Train No.67264 Hyderabad-Warangal Pushpull Passenger in General Compartment. There was heavy rush of passengers in the compartment suddenly E.Anil Kumar slipped and fell down accidentally from the running Train in between Secunderabad and Lallaguda Railway Stations due to speed, jolt and sudden jerks and Anil Kumar received severe head injury and other multiple fatal injuries, he along with his two other fellow passengers stopped the train by pulling Alarm chain, reported the same to the Guard of the Train about the accident of Anil Kumar. Guard has taken their Identity Cards and other particulars and Anil Kumar died while undergoing treatment in the early hours of 05.06.2012 at about 3.00 A.M. as a result of the injuries and all the three were examined as witnesses and their statements were recorded by the Railway Police about the journey. 17.2. In his cross-examination he stated that E.Anil Kumar purchased ticket at 9.24 hours, Train came half-an-hour late and they boarded the train at 10.10 hours and there was heavy rush, were standing inside the door since no seats were available and he is a witness to the fall of Anil Kumar, Anil Kumar fell down due to jerks and he pulled the Alarm chain, train stopped at Moula Ali station and he reported the matter to the Guard and three of them went to the accident spot. Though, he pulled the chain immediately the Train stopped only at Moula Ali. Guard called the Ambulance but the Ambulance did not turn up and the injured was taken in an Auto-Rickshaw to the Hospital. Train departed after they got down from the train. 18.1. Ex.A1 is the copy of journey ticket dated 04.06.2012 taken at 9.24 hours showing the number as A09345095 from Kharitabad Deccan to Raigir via SC for four passengers. On the complaint lodged by Station Manager, Secunderabad on 04.06.2012 case in FIR No.287 of 2012 is registered on 05.06.2012 by GRP Secunderabad under Section 174 Cr.P.C. about the accidental fall from running pushpull train by E.Anil Kumar who received head injury. Ex.A3 is the Death Summary dated 05.06.2012 of the deceased and the cause of death is mentioned as cardio pulmonary arrest. Ex.A4 is the Inquest Report dated 05.06.2012 wherein R.Sai Kumar is shown as the witness. In Column No.7 of the Inquest Report ticket No.09345095 dated 04.06.2012 is mentioned. In Column No.15 it is stated that on 04.06.2012 the deceased along with his friends while travelling from Khairtabad to Raigir in Pushpull passenger train, after the train passed Secunderabad Railway Station accidentally E.Anil Kumar slipped and fell down near Lallaguda Railway Station, his friends stopped the Train and took the injured E.Anil Kumar to Gandhi Hospital by Auto for treatment and while he was taking treatment under MLC No.15675, IP No.1363 and on 05.06.2012 at 3.00 hours E.Anil Kumar died. 18.2. 18.2. Ex.A5 is the PME report and the cause of death is shown as head injury, Ex.A6 is the Death Certificate of E.Anil Kumar, Ex.A7 is the Date of Birth certificate which shows the Date of Birth of E.Anil Kumar as 25.08.1992, Ex.A8 is the copy of Ration Card and Ex.A9 is the certificate got issued by Tahsildar, Khaithabad that the deceased is not a Government Employee and Family Members Certificate was rejected. 19. CW.1 - N.Giri deposed that as per the records produced, document/CD dated 05.06.2012 in its concluding portion it is stated that “the CD file along with the original journey ticket No.09345095 dated 04.06.2012 issued at 9.24 hours of deceased was handed over to Sri D.Rama Rao, SI, Secunderabad for further investigation, closed the CD for the day”. This witness is not cross-examined by the respondent’s counsel. 20.1. CW.2-D.Ramesh deposed that Sri D.Rama Rao, SI of Police had conducted the investigation and he retired from service, he has perused the CD file and there is no entry made as to when the original ticket was obtained by the applicant. In the CD file there is no disclosure or acknowledgment by the applicant about receipt of such original ticket and the original records are filed before the Tribunal containing 41 folios, which is marked as Ex.C1 and he cannot explain how the said ticket was taken out or disappeared from the original CD file. 20.2. In his cross-examination he stated that photo copy of the ticket (front as well as back side) was issued to the applicant after attestation and on the back side of the ticket some names were written by the Government Railway Police and the Inspector-SHO concerned handed over the CD file to him to appear and seek time so that the Department can summon the Investigating Officer who has retired. Generally, original ticket is not released to the parties unless there is a specific prayer made and sometimes it do happens that the original document is parted without obtaining acknowledgment. 21. The admission made by CW.2 in his cross-examination goes to show that Ex.A1 is issued to the applicant after attestation by Sub-Inspector, Government Railway Police Station, Secunderabad. 22. Ex.R1 is the Divisional Railway Manager’s report and in Column No.8 it states that “General Class Ticket bearing No.09345095 Ex. Khairtabad to Raigir. 21. The admission made by CW.2 in his cross-examination goes to show that Ex.A1 is issued to the applicant after attestation by Sub-Inspector, Government Railway Police Station, Secunderabad. 22. Ex.R1 is the Divisional Railway Manager’s report and in Column No.8 it states that “General Class Ticket bearing No.09345095 Ex. Khairtabad to Raigir. In Page 3 of Ex.R1 which reads as under: “During the course of RPF enquiry, obtained extract of ticket bearing No.A 9345095 particulars from the Manager, Data base centre, Secunderabad in which it is furnished that the ticket was sold on 04.06.2012 at 09.24 AM, Ex: Khairatabad Road to Raigir for 04 Adults for Rs.40/-”. In the conclusion portion at page 6 of Ex.R1 it is observed as under: “Enquiries in this case, reveal that, the deceased boarded the train at Khairatabad. During the course of investigation the guard clearly stated that there was no jerks and jolts reported in the said train. The eye witnesses Sri. Rakkam Sai Kumar, Sri Bheema Hari Prasad stated that the deceased was seen standing on footboard at the time of incident. This deceased should have taken reasonable care and caution while travelling the train, which was done by his friends/co- passengers. It is clear that the incident took place due to the negligence and carelessness act of the deceased but not due to any other reason”. 23. Statement of AW.2 is also recorded by the police on 10.01.2013 wherein reference is made to ticket No. A09345095 dated 04.06.2012 time 9.24 and the amount shown is Rs.40/-. The final report enclosed to Ex.R1 reads as under: “From the facts and evidence collected so far and on the strength of the PME report it is revealed that on 04.06.2012 deceased and along with his 3 other friends purchased train ticket at Khairatabad station vide ticket No.09345095 for Raigir in order to go to Yadagirigutta Temple for Darshan and while travelling by Pushpull train the deceased accidentally fallen down from running train between Secunderabad and Lallaguda station and sustained injuries and while undergoing treatment in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad he was succumbed to the injuries on 05.06.2012 at 03.00 hours and foul play is suspected in the death of deceased”. 24. And the report of Untoward Incidents shows that it is an accidental fall. 24. And the report of Untoward Incidents shows that it is an accidental fall. In Ex.C1-CD file dated 05.06.2012 AW.2 is shown as witness and journey ticket No.09345095 dated 04.06.2012 time 9.24 hours Rs.40/- was handed over to Sri D.Rama Rao, SIRP- Secunderabad for further investigation. Ticket number is also mentioned in the CD file dated 07.06.2012 dated 25.07.2012 and statement of AW.2 recorded on 05.06.2012 also discloses the ticket number. 25. The ticket number mentioned in Ex.A1 is matching with the ticket numbers in Ex.R1 and Ex.C1. CW.1 has also stated about the ticket number mentioned in the CD file dated 05.06.2012 and CW.2 admitted that Ex.A1 photocopy was issued to the applicant. The learned Tribunal arrived at an erroneous conclusion that mere production of journey ticket which was filed as attested copy does not inspire any confidence and that the applicants have not come to the Court with clean hands and the Tribunal erroneously came to further conclusion that the deceased or that any passenger is not expected to travel standing on the foot board on a running train, if he does so it was his own risk and amounts to criminal negligence with total lack of care cautioned and circumspection of unmindful of the consequences, the conduct cannot be termed as ordinary negligence. 26. AW.2 is an eye witness to the incident and he stated that E. Anil Kumar has purchased the ticket for four of them on 04.06.2012 which is Ex.A1 as there was heavy rush in the train, due to jerks the deceased fell down. The applicants have discharged their burden and it is the respondent who has not discharged the burden to prove that there is negligence on the part of the deceased in falling from the Train. 27. The decision cited by the appellant’s counsel are applicable to the case on hand and the learned Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the application of the applicants without analysing the evidence and documents marked there on. The judgment passed by the learned trial Court is perverse in view of the reasons stated above and the same is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 28. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 23.02.2018 in O.A.II(U) No.292 of 2012 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench is set aside and the appellants-applicants are awarded a compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs. 28. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 23.02.2018 in O.A.II(U) No.292 of 2012 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench is set aside and the appellants-applicants are awarded a compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs. The Respondent is directed to deposit the compensation before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment, on such deposit the appellants- applicants are equally entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing security. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim Orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.