JUDGMENT : [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] 1. The Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the Original Applicants whose claim for compensation on account of death of their son in an incident of 5th October, 2013 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 has been dismissed by the impugned Judgment dated 30 th September, 2019. 2. The Application for compensation filed in the prescribed form pleads that on 5 th October, 2013 their son Dip Pinto Sen wanted to go to Kalyan for some work and bought return railway ticket from Ambernath to Kalyan. After finishing the work, their son came to Kalyan Railway Station and boarded the local train to Ambernath where he used to reside. When the said train reached between Vitthalwadi and Ulhasnagar railway station, the deceased accidentally fell down from the train due to heavy rush in the compartment and expired on the spot. The deceased was holding II nd class return railway ticket from Ambernath to Kalyan, which got lost in the accident. The Applicants claimed to be financially dependent on the deceased. Along with the Application, the Applicants filed the Station Master memo, Police Report, Inquest Panchanama, Statement, Ration Card and copy of bank Pass Book. 3. The defence of the Respondent was that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and the investigation report revealed that the deceased was run over while unauthorizedly crossing the railway tracks. 4. The Applicant No. 1 examined himself and deposed to the contents of the Application, and, produced the copy of station master memo, Police Report, inquest panchnama, spot panchnama, death certificate, copy of bank pass book, Identity Card and ration card. In the cross examination, he admitted that he had not personally witnessed the incident. The Railways filed its DRM’s report. 5. The Railway Claims Tribunal framed the following relevant issues: “i) Whether the applicants prove that they are the dependents of the deceased within the meaning of Section 123 (b) of the Railways Act? ii) Whether the applicants prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train, in question, on the relevant day? iii) Whether the applicants prove that the death of the deceased had occurred as a result of an untoward incident, as alleged in the claim application? 6. ii) Whether the applicants prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train, in question, on the relevant day? iii) Whether the applicants prove that the death of the deceased had occurred as a result of an untoward incident, as alleged in the claim application? 6. The Railway Claims Tribunal answered the Issue No. 1 in favour of the Applicants however, as regards the issues of the deceased being bonafide passenger and the accident being an untoward incident were answered against the Applicant. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the Claim Application based on the DRM’s Report that as the GRP has not mentioned about recovery of any railway ticket or pass from the possession of the deceased during the inquest proceedings, the deceased cannot be termed as bonafide passenger. The Tribunal further accepted the observation in the inquest panchanama and Deputy Station Superintendent’s Memo that the deceased was hit by unknown train while crossing the railway track in negligent manner. 7. Mr. More, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant would submit that the Appellant No. 1 had filed his affidavit of evidence specifically deposing that the deceased had gone to Kalyan for his personal work and was coming back from Kalyan to Ambernath by local train and had accidentally fallen down from the running train and his body was cut into two pieces and he expired on the spot. He has further deposed that the ticket might have been lost in the accident and that he was travelling by the local train having valid railway ticket and was bonafide passenger of the train. 8. He submits that in the cross examination, the only suggestion given is that the son had died while crossing the railway track and there is not even a suggestion that he was not a bonafide passenger. He would further point out that the Tribunal has considered the injuries sustained by the deceased and has held that such grievous injuries can only be inflicted on a person who has either being knocked down or run over by some train and has therefore held that the deceased was knocked down by an unknown train. He submits that the decision of this Court dated 5 th September, 2022 in the case of Mrs. He submits that the decision of this Court dated 5 th September, 2022 in the case of Mrs. Seema wd/o Sanjay Pathare vs. Union of India passed in First Appeal No. 551 of 2021 has held that it is not a universal proposition that every crush injury is caused by coming in contact with the moving train and such injury can also be caused when the person falls from speeding train. 9. He submits that the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi , 2018 ACJ 1441 has held that the initial burden to prove that the deceased was bonafide passenger is always on the claimant however once an affidavit of relevant facts is filed by the Claimant the onus shifts on the Railways. He submits that the Apex Court has further held that the mere absence of ticket will not negate the claim that he was bonafide passenger. 10. He submits that in the case of Sanyokta Devi vs. Union of India , 2023 (2) T.A.C. 16 (S.C.) the Apex Court has held that the Claimants cannot be expected to explain how the accident has taken place. 11. Per contra, Mr. Saluja, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Railways would submit that the station master’s memo records that on 5 th October, 2013 the deceased was hit by unknown train while trespassing. He would further submit that the inquest panchanama records that the ticket has not been found on his person whereas his mobile was found in broken condition. He submits that the spot panchanama recorded by police on 6 th October, 2013 records that while seeing the surrounding area of spot, no doubtful thing or weapon has been seen and therefore it is evident that the premises were searched and no ticket was found. He would further submit that the documents on record shows that the deceased was run over while unauthorizedly crossing the railway tracks and therefore it is not an untoward incident. 12. The following points arise for consideration: (a) Whether the Applicants have proved that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. (b) Whether in the facts of the present case, the death had occasioned due to an untoward incident ? As to point No. 1: 13. 12. The following points arise for consideration: (a) Whether the Applicants have proved that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. (b) Whether in the facts of the present case, the death had occasioned due to an untoward incident ? As to point No. 1: 13. Before proceeding to the facts of the case, it would be beneficial to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra) where the Apex Court has considered the issue of burden of proof when the body is found on the railway premises. After examining decisions of various High Courts, the Apex Court held that the mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was bonafide passenger and that initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of relevant facts and the burden will then shift on the railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances which will have to be dealt from case to case on the basis of facts found. 14. In the present case, by filing the evidence affidavit, the Applicant No. 1 has deposed that the deceased was travelling by local train having valid railway ticket and while travelling had accidentally fallen down from the running train and died. 15. In the cross-examination, there is not even a suggestion given by the Railways that the deceased did not have a valid railway ticket and was therefore not a bonafide passenger. The initial burden of the Applicant was to assert that the deceased was having valid ticket and once such assertion finds place in the affidavit the initial burden stands discharged and the onus then shifts on the railways. The evidence of the Applicant No. 1 has gone un-contraverted as regards the deposition of the purchase of the railway ticket by the deceased and the deceased must be held to be a bonafide passenger. Point no. 1 is accordingly answered in favour of the Applicants. As to Point No. 2. 16. The evidence of the Applicant No. 1 has gone un-contraverted as regards the deposition of the purchase of the railway ticket by the deceased and the deceased must be held to be a bonafide passenger. Point no. 1 is accordingly answered in favour of the Applicants. As to Point No. 2. 16. Under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act ‘untoward incident’ means the accidental falling of any passenger from train carrying passenger and Section 124-A of the Railways Act provides for ‘no fault liability’ compensation to be paid for the loss occasioned by reason of untoward incident subject to the exceptions carved out in clause (a) (e) of the proviso. In the present case the defence of the Respondent-Railways as per the DRM’s Report is that the deceased was trespasser and was run over while unauthorisedly crossing the tracks and that the incident was self inflicted one as much as deceased carelessly and negligently invited the disaster to himself. It is further the contention that the body was found cut into two pieces which happens only when run over by speeding train and not by falling down. The injuries which are reflected in the postmortem report are as under: 1. # (R+) femur 2. # (R+) thigh 3. Multiple abrasion over back, abdomen and both legs. 4. Body divided in two parts horizontally at abdomen unbilical region. 17. The Trial Court upon consideration of the injuries held that such injuries can be inflicted only upon person who has either being knocked down or run over by some train and has therefore accepted that the deceased was trespasser and was knocked down by unknown train. 18. As per the prescribed procedure, the information about the accident is first given to the station master and the station master memo records that the deceased was hit by an unknown train while trespassing. The Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 provides that any railway servant including guard and driver of train on coming to know of occurrence of an untoward incident shall report the same to the nearest station Superintendent. 19. In the present case, the station master’s memo does not record any information being given by any motorman of having knocked down any person which was the bounden duty of the railway servant as per Rule 3 of the Rules of 2003. 19. In the present case, the station master’s memo does not record any information being given by any motorman of having knocked down any person which was the bounden duty of the railway servant as per Rule 3 of the Rules of 2003. The information given to the police infact records that on 5 th October, 2013 written memo was given that the deceased was lying between Vitthalwadi and Ulhas Nagar railway station near railway K.M. 56/36 in two pieces of body. It is therefore clear that the deceased was found lying near the railway track and no information was given by any motorman that the train had knocked down some person who was crossing the railway track. There is no evidence led by Railways of any guard or motormen to establish that the deceased was knocked down while crossing the tracks. 20. It is the case of the Railways that it is self inflicted injury and has occurred due to carelessness and negligence of the Applicant. In the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra) the Apex Court examined the concept of self inflicted injury and after considering the various decisions on the subject held that the concept of self inflicted injury would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. It further approved the view taken in the case of United India Assurance Company Ltd., vs. Sunil Kumar, 2018 ACG 1 (SC) that the 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. 21. In Sadashiv Ramappa Kotiyan vs. Union of India , (2022) ACJ 175 the Co- ordinate Bench, in identical facts where the body was found cut in two pieces, has held that in absence of expert evidence, the Tribunal should not have rendered its personal opinion while adjudicating the claim under the present statute. The contention of the Railways thus could not have been accepted. As far as the findings of the Trial Court based on the injuries and holding that such grievous injury could not be sustained after having fallen down from the train is sustained, it needs to be noted that the injuries have to be considered in the overall circumstances. The contention of the Railways thus could not have been accepted. As far as the findings of the Trial Court based on the injuries and holding that such grievous injury could not be sustained after having fallen down from the train is sustained, it needs to be noted that the injuries have to be considered in the overall circumstances. The extent of the injuries is not sufocient in order to come to a conclusion that he was knocked down by a train particularly when the Railways have not examined any witness to establish that the deceased was knocked down by a train while crossing the railway tracks. The place where the body was found was known to the railways and it would not have been difocult to find out the trains which would be crossing the particular spot either at particular time. The railways having failed to lead any evidence it cannot be said that the accident was not result of untoward incident. 22. The Tribunal erred in considering the opinion of panchas in inquest panchanama, the police report and spot panchanama that the deceased while crossing the line came under the train. The reports had to read along with the evidence and could not be solely relied upon to arrive at a finding that the deceased had been hit by a train while crossing the tracks. The Railways having failed to lead evidence to prove the same, the opinion set out in the reports could not be accepted. The evidence produced on record proves that the deceased had expired in an untoward incident by reason of which the compensation is payable under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and the incident does not fall in any of the exceptions carved out in the proviso to Section 124-A. Point No. (2) is accordingly answered in favour of the Applicant. 23. Resultantly, the First Appeal is allowed and the following order is passed: ORDER: (a) First Appeal is allowed. (b) The impugned Judgment dated 30 th September, 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. (c) Respondent-Railway shall pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the Appellants within a period of eight weeks from the date of the Appellants furnishing the bank details to the concerned department. (b) The impugned Judgment dated 30 th September, 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. (c) Respondent-Railway shall pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the Appellants within a period of eight weeks from the date of the Appellants furnishing the bank details to the concerned department. (d) In event of failure to make payment within the prescribed time, the Respondent Railways to pay interest @ 6% p.a. on the amount of compensation from due date till the entire amount is realized.