JUDGMENT : BIPIN GUPTA, J. 1. The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Section 23 of Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987, by the applicants, challenging the impugned judgment dated 18.02.2022, passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, in Original Application No. OA-II-227/2017, whereby the applicants’ claim application, seeking compensation from the respondent, for the death of their son, alleged to have occurred in an untoward incident, has been dismissed. 2. Succinctly, facts of this appeal are, on fateful day 03.03.2017, son of the applicants was travelling by Mandore Express, having a valid 2 nd class railway journey ticket. When the train was passing through Rajgarh Railway Station, deceased Rajendra Kumar, due to sudden jerk of the train and pressure of co-passengers, accidentally fell down from the running train. On account of this, he suffered multiple grievous injuries, leading to his instant death. The Station Superintendent at Rajgarh informed the Station Superintendent at Alwar about this incident. Acting on the same, the Government Railway Police, Alwar reached the site of the incident and registered FIR, bearing No. 06/2017, under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Postmortem was conducted and the dead body of the deceased Rajendra Kumar was handed over to the family members for final rituals and thereafter, OA was filed claiming compensation. 3. The respondent in the reply contended that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, as he was not travelling on a valid ticket. It was further contended by respondent that the deceased did not suffer injuries due to the untoward incident, as his mutilated body was found on the track and therefore, the incident could not be considered as untoward incident, thus, prayed that the claim petition may be rejected. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- (i) Whether the deceased was travelling on a valid railway journey ticket and was a bonafide passenger of the train in question at the relevant time? (ii) Whether the deceased met with an untoward incident due to fall from the passenger carrying train, suffered injuries and died as a result thereof and the present case is covered under the definition of Section 123(c) (2) read with 124A of the Railways Act, 1989? (iii) Whether the applicants are the sole dependents of the deceased and are entitled to compensation as claimed under Para-16 of the claim application? (iv) Relief? 5. (iii) Whether the applicants are the sole dependents of the deceased and are entitled to compensation as claimed under Para-16 of the claim application? (iv) Relief? 5. In order to substantiate the pleadings made in the claim application, the applicants examined himself as AW-1 Ramesh Kumar and exhibited documents A-1 to A-11. The respondent, in defence, examined AW-1 Mohanlal Meena and AW-2 Mukesh Kumar and exhibited documents R-1 to R-5. 6. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned Tribunal, decided issue No. (i) and (ii) against the applicants, therefore, dismissed the claim application. 7. Hence, this civil miscellaneous appeal on behalf of the applicants. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim application. Despite, acknowledging in Paragraph 19 of the impugned judgment, that the applicants had discharged the initial burden of proof being a bonafide passenger, it nevertheless held, the deceased as not a bonafide passenger as well as not a case of untoward incident and wrongly rejected the claim application, merely on the fact that deceased body was found on the track. 9. He also argued that the learned Tribunal improperly relied on the DRM report, which was prepared belatedly, was based on hearsay, and moreover, DRM report also does not deny the death on account of run over by the train. 10. Further, the Tribunal wrongly placed reliance on the statements of AW-1 and AW-2, who were not eye witnesses. The police investigation, on the other hand, supports the conclusion that the death resulted from a fall from a moving train, no evidence exists to bring the case within the exceptions outlined under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. Learned counsel asserts that the learned Tribunal committed error in holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and it was not in an untoward incident. He therefore, prayed that the miscellaneous appeal may be allowed and the claim application may also be allowed. 11. Counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court, in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi , (2019) 3 SCC 572 , Doli Rani Saha Vs. Union of India , 2024 AIR (SC) 4910 & Kamukayi and Ors. Vs. Union of India , (2023) 19 Supreme Court Cases 116 and the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Anokhi Devi Vs. Rina Devi , (2019) 3 SCC 572 , Doli Rani Saha Vs. Union of India , 2024 AIR (SC) 4910 & Kamukayi and Ors. Vs. Union of India , (2023) 19 Supreme Court Cases 116 and the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Anokhi Devi Vs. U.O.I. AIR (Raj.) 46. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent while vehemently opposing the prayer of the applicants submitted, that impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is fair and just. He further argued that since the body of the deceased was found on the track therefore, deceased cannot be held to have died from falling from the running train, he could not be held to be a bonafide passenger. The DRM report has not found it to be a case of untoward incident. The ticket was not recovered, therefore, deceased cannot be held to be a bonafide passenger. Consequently prayed, no interference is required to be made in the impugned judgment. 13. Heard and perused the material available on record. 14. It is relevant to refer some of the provisions of the Railways Act 1989, which reads as under:- “Section 123. Definitions.— In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires— (a) “accident” means an accident of the nature described in section 124; (b) ---------- (c) “untoward incident” means— (1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section (3) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Section 124. Section 124. Extent of liability.— When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or has suffered a loss to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction, damage or deterioration of goods owned by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident. Explanation.— For the purposes of this section “passenger” includes a railway servant on duty. Section 124A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents.— When in the course of working a 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 such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependent of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident: Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to— (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him; (b) self-inflicted injury; (c) his own criminal act; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “passenger” includes— (i) a railway servant on duty; (ii) 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.” 15. It is an admitted position that no valid travel ticket was recovered, either from the body of the deceased or from the site of the incident during the search. Therefore, the pivotal issue that arises for the determination of this Court is, whether the mere absence of a ticket, in present facts and circumstances of case, is sufficient to negate the claim of the applicants. To address this issue, the Court has carefully examined the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 16. In the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi , (2019) 3 SCC 572 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that: “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 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. In the case of Kamukayi & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2023 SC 2761 , while placing reliance on Rina Devi (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that:- “19. In view of above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that as per law laid down by this Court in Rina Devi (supra), it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Muchamy @ Muthusamy died in an untoward incident which took place on 27.9.2014 while travelling in a passenger Train No. 5684 and he was a bona fide passenger. The findings adversely recorded by the Claims Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court are perverse, therefore set-aside. The findings adversely recorded by the Claims Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court are perverse, therefore set-aside. In our view, as per the provisions contained in Section 124A of Railways Act and Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the Appellants are entitled to claim compensation.” 18. Further relying on the decisions in Rina Devi (supra) and Kamukayi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India , AIR 2024 SC 4910 , has observed as follows: “13. 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 Rina Devi (supra), 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: 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. (Emphasis supplied) 14. 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) 14. 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.” 19. From the recapitulation of the various judicial pronouncements, it emerges that the absence of a ticket, by itself, cannot be treated as conclusive evidence against the passenger being a not bonafide passenger. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that the initial burden lies on the claimant/applicant to establish that the deceased was indeed a passenger having a valid ticket, which burden may appropriately be discharged by filing an affidavit containing the relevant facts. Upon such discharge of initial burden, the onus shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim by producing evidence to the contrary. 20. In the present case, the learned Tribunal observed in paragraph 19 of the impugned judgment that the applicants succeeded in discharging their initial burden by submitting the affidavit of Applicant No. 1, Shri Ramesh Kumar to prove the deceased being a bonafide passenger. In addition, the testimonies of AW-1 Mohan Lal and AW-2 Mukesh, both of whom stated categorically that the deceased’s body was recovered in a severely crushed condition. Additionally, Exhibit A-4, the Panchnama prepared by Investigating Officer Ghanshyam on 03.03.2017, records the unequivocal statements of all present that the deceased had died due to an accidental fall from a train. The post- mortem report (Exhibit A-7) also reflects that the cause of death was antemortem injuries sustained on the body. 21. Moreover, the respondent has not advanced any case suggesting that the deceased had deliberately jumped before any train. Although the respondent, in its reply, asserted that the deceased died due to his own negligence, this allegation has not been substantiated by any evidence. 21. Moreover, the respondent has not advanced any case suggesting that the deceased had deliberately jumped before any train. Although the respondent, in its reply, asserted that the deceased died due to his own negligence, this allegation has not been substantiated by any evidence. On the contrary, the overall evidence strongly supports the probability that the death resulted from an accidental fall from a running train. The circumstances lends credence to the explanation that the ticket could not have been recovered owing to the severity of the injuries and condition of the body which was in separate pieces. Thus, there is very bleak chances of recovery of any ticket. The respondent has not been able to rebut the presence of the deceased in the train by any cogent evidence. Merely non recovery of a ticket in present facts, cannot be a ground to hold the deceased, as not a bonafide pessanger, so as to deny the benefit of benevolence legislation. The defence sought to be raised by the respondent to bring the case within exceptions remains entirely silent and not proved by any evidence. 22. A holistic reading of the statutory scheme under the Railways Act further fortifies this conclusion. Section 123(c) defines an “untoward incident,” and clause (2) explicitly includes the accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers within its ambit. Section 124-A then imposes a no-fault liability on the Railway Administration to pay compensation for death or injury resulting from such incidents, irrespective of any wrongful act, neglect, or default on the part of the Railways. This legislative framework is demonstrably welfare-oriented and aims at ensuring swift and equitable relief to victims and their dependents. 23. The legislative intent underlying Sections 123(c)(2) and 124- A is unmistakably remedial and benevolent. Courts, therefore, are enjoined to adopt a liberal and purposive interpretation that advances the object of the statute rather than frustrates it. To deny compensation solely on the ground that a ticket was not found, particularly in situations where the deceased’s body is recovered in a mutilated or crushed state, would amount to imposing an unduly harsh, unrealistic, and inequitable burden on the claimants. Such an approach would run counter to both the spirit of the Act and the principles of social justice. Respondent’s failure to produce any cogent rebuttal evidence in the present case significantly strengthens the applicants’ position. 24. Such an approach would run counter to both the spirit of the Act and the principles of social justice. Respondent’s failure to produce any cogent rebuttal evidence in the present case significantly strengthens the applicants’ position. 24. In view of above, this Court holds that the mere non- recovery of a travel ticket, especially in circumstances where the deceased’s body was found in a crushed condition, cannot constitute valid grounds to repudiate a legitimate claim for compensation. The applicants, having convincingly discharged their initial burden, are rightfully entitled to the relief sought. 25. Since the respondents have failed to substantiate their claim regarding the victim's death under the exception provided in Section 124-A, the only reasonable conclusion is that the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident. Therefore, it is held that the deceased had died in an untoward incident. 26. Accordingly, the present Civil Misc. Appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 18.02.2022, passed by learned Railway Claim Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, in Original Application No. OA-II-227/2017, is hereby quashed and set aside. 27. Therefore, the applicants are held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. The amount of compensation be deposited by the respondent within a period of eight weeks before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the amount in terms of the Railway Accidents and untoward incident (compensation) Amendment Rules, 2020. 28. No order as to costs. 29. Record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith. 30. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.