JUDGMENT : (Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.) 1. The Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the Original Claimant whose claim for compensation filed under Section 16(1) r/w Section 13(1-A) of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 r/w Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 on account of death of their son in an incident of 19 th September, 2014 has been dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal by the impugned Judgment dated 19 th July 2019. 2. The facts of the case are that an Application came to be filed by the present Claimants before the Accident Claims Tribunal pleading that their son was travelling from Kurla to Reay Road on 19.09.2014 and accidentally fell down from the running train near Kurla Station and sustained head injuries and expired on 24.09.2014. It was further pleaded that the deceased was travelling in II nd class compartment holding valid II nd class return ticket from Kurla to Reay Road and that the same was lost in accident. In support of the Application the Applicants produced the copy of Station Master memo, copy of Police Report, copy of Inquest Panchanama, copy of police Statement, copy of Death Certificate, copy of Ration Card, copy of Aadhar Card, and copy of bank Pass Book and relied upon the spot panchanama and the postmortem report. 3. The defence of the Railways was that the alleged incident is not an untoward incident and that the deceased was not bonafide passenger. The Respondent produced the DRM’s Report on record. 4. In support of their case the Claimants examined the mother and brother of the deceased. The mother deposed that on 19.09.2014, the deceased along with younger brother was going to Reay road dargah for prayer and at about 15.50 hours she received telephone from railway police Kurla railway station that her son had fallen down from the running train near Kurla railway station and was taken to the Sion hospital. She has further deposed that the deceased was travelling in II nd class compartment holding II nd class return journey ticket and the same was lost in the accident. 5. In the cross-examination she has admitted that she has no personal knowledge of the incident and that the police had informed her about the deceased being admitted in injured condition to Sion hospital. 6. AW-2 Vahid Raza Mohd. 5. In the cross-examination she has admitted that she has no personal knowledge of the incident and that the police had informed her about the deceased being admitted in injured condition to Sion hospital. 6. AW-2 Vahid Raza Mohd. Israil Khan deposed that on 19 th September, 2014 he along with the deceased had taken permission from their mother to go to Reay Road dargah for prayer. He further deposed that their mother had given money to the deceased to purchase railway tickets and the deceased had purchased two return tickets from ticket counter from Kurla to Reay Road railway station, out of which the deceased kept his railway ticket in his shirt pocket and gave AW-2’s ticket to him and thereafter they both boarded the harbour local train. He has further deposed that when the said train left Kurla station due to heavy rush the deceased’s hand slipped and he fell down from the running train. He has further deposed that he got down at Chunnabhati Railway Station and came back to Kurla railway station and had seen the railway police take him to Sion hospital for medical treatment and that he immediately rushed home and told his mother about the incident of his brother and in the meantime the railway police had informed his mother of the said incident and that they both rushed to Sion hospital. 7. In the cross-examination he has admitted that he was travelling with the deceased but his statement to the police is not on record. He has deposed that they had purchased two return tickets for Rs. 40/- and has admitted that the present rate of return ticket from Kurla to Reay Road is Rs. 10/- and therefore five years back the cost could not have been Rs. 40/-. He has deposed the incident had occurred between the 3.30 to 4.00 p.m. 8. The Trial Court after framing the necessary issues including the issue as to whether the deceased was bonafide passenger and had died in an untoward incident, by the impugned Judgment and order answered the issue as regards the deceased being bonafide passenger against the Applicant. The claim came to be denied by holding that the deceased was not bonafide passenger at the time of the accident. 9. The claim came to be denied by holding that the deceased was not bonafide passenger at the time of the accident. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the Claim has been denied only on the ground that deceased was not bonafide passenger. He submits that the Claimants had examined the younger brother of the deceased who has deposed as to the relevant facts which proves that money was given by their mother for purchase of tickets and the deceased had purchased the tickets. 10. He would further point out the statement of mother recorded on 24 th September, 2014 by the police in which she has stated that her son Vahid informed her that the deceased and he had come to Kurla railway station and had purchased two II nd class ticket and boarded the train from Platform No. 8. He would further submit that the DRM’s report is based upon the GRP’s report that there was no ticket which was found on the body of the deceased whereas it is well settled position in law that mere absence of the ticket is not sufficient to hold that the deceased was not bonafide passenger. Drawing support from the decision in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, 2018 ACJ 1441 he submits that the Apex Court has held that the initial burden is upon the Claimant which can be discharged by filing afodavit of relevant facts and the burden will then shift on railways. He submits that in the present case by reason of the afodavit filed by the mother as well as the brother who was travelling with the deceased, the Claimants have discharged their burden and the Railways have not led any evidence to show that the deceased was not bonafide passenger. 11. Per contra, Mr. Pandian, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Railway would submit in order to discharge the burden, the Railways have cross examined the deceased brother and has established that the witness was planted witness as he claimed to have purchased the return ticket for Rs. 40/- five years prior thereto whereas the rate of the ticket at the time of leading of the evidence which was in 2019 was Rs. 10/-. He therefore submits that there is no evidence to show that the deceased had purchased valid ticket or that the brother was travelling with the deceased. 12. 40/- five years prior thereto whereas the rate of the ticket at the time of leading of the evidence which was in 2019 was Rs. 10/-. He therefore submits that there is no evidence to show that the deceased had purchased valid ticket or that the brother was travelling with the deceased. 12. The following point arises for determination: (1) Whether the Claimants have discharged the burden of proving that the deceased was bonafide passenger. As to Point No. 1: 13. The claim for compensation has been dismissed on the ground that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. The explanation to Section 124A of Railways Act provides that a passenger includes a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers on any date and becomes a victim of untoward incident. AW-1-the mother of the deceased and AW-2- brother of the deceased have deposed that AW-1 had given money for purchasing tickets to the deceased and that AW-2 and the deceased were travelling together on the fateful day. AW-2 has further deposed as to the relevant fact of purchase of tickets by the deceased. In the statement to the police, which was recorded on 24 th September,2014, barely five days after the incident, AW-1 has stated that she was informed by the deceased and AW-2 that they were going to Reay Road dargah and she gave them money for purchasing tickets. She has stated that she was informed by the police that her son had fallen down from local train and while leaving for the hospital, AW-2 came there and informed her that the deceased and he had purchased the tickets from kurla station and thereafter boarded the train from platform no 8. The deposition of AW-2 corroborates the evidence of AW-1. The evidence establishes that on the fateful day, AW-2 was travelling alongwith the deceased in the local train when the deceased fell down from the running train. 14. In the cross examination, Aw-2 has stated that the tickets were purchased for Rs 40/. The contradiction is sought to be established by showing that in the year 2019 the price of return ticket was Rs 10/ and therefore in 2014, the price could not have been Rs 40/. Mr. Pandian would emphasize that the discrepancy would amount to discharging of burden by the railways. The contradiction is sought to be established by showing that in the year 2019 the price of return ticket was Rs 10/ and therefore in 2014, the price could not have been Rs 40/. Mr. Pandian would emphasize that the discrepancy would amount to discharging of burden by the railways. It needs to be noted that in the year 2019 Aw-2 was aged about 22 years and in the year 2014, his age was about 17 years. He has specifically deposed that the deceased who was his elder brother had purchased the tickets and had given him his ticket. Aw-2 would therefore not be aware of the price at which the deceased had purchased the tickets in the year 2014. 15. It is pertinent to note though Aw-1 had stated in her statement to the police that AW-2 was travelling alongwith the deceased, the police did not record the statement of Aw-2. Considering that the statement of Aw-1 was recorded by the police immediately on death of the deceased , there is no reason to cast any doubt on the statement. The evidence of Aw-1 has been corroborated by Aw-2 and the mere discrepancy in showing the price of the ticket is not sufficient to discharge the burden cast upon the Railways once the Claimants have discharged their initial burden. 16. The Apex Court in Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra) has held that the initial burden can be discharged by filing of afodavit of relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. 17. In my view, the oral evidence of AW-1 and AW-2 read with the police statement of AW-1 sufficiently discharges the initial burden. The discrepancy in the price of tickets was not sufficient to discharge the onus which shifted upon the Railways when the attending circumstances are seen as proved from the reports of investigation. 18. There is no discussion by the Tribunal on the oral and documentary evidence on record and the issue of bonafide passenger has been answered against the deceased by merely relying upon the inquest panchnama where the GRP has not mentioned about recovery of railway ticket. Admittedly the deceased had fallen down from running train and there was possibility of ticket having been lost. Admittedly the deceased had fallen down from running train and there was possibility of ticket having been lost. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Rina Devi (supra), the mere absence of ticket will not negative the claim that he was bonafide passenger. 19. Based on pre-ponderance of probabilities, the Claimants have established that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. The incident having been held to be an untoward incident, the Claimants are entitled to compensation under Section 124A of Railways Act. Resultantly, the following order is passed: ORDER: (a) First Appeal is allowed. (b) The impugned judgment dated 19 th July, 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. (c) The Respondent-Railways is directed to pay compensation @ Rs 8,00,000/- within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the Claimants furnishing their account details to the concerned department of Railways. (d) In event the compensation is not paid within the period stipulated in Clause (c) above, the Railways shall be liable to pay interest @6% p.a. from the due date till payment or realisation.