JUDGMENT : 1. This First Appeal is at the instance of original Applicant whose claim for grant of compensation on the ground of death of her son in an incident which occurred on 9 th July 2018 has been dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 8 th March 2023 passed in Application No.14 of 2019. 2. The contention in the Claim Application was that on 9 th July 2018, the deceased was travelling from Thane to Kopar by local train in second class compartment holding a valid second class railway ticket and when the local train had reached near KM 46/10 and 46/11 between Kopar Railway Station and Diva Railway Station, due to push from the crowd, the deceased accidentally fell down from the train and sustained injuries and expired. It was pleaded that deceased was travelling from Thane to Kopar holding a valid second class return railway ticket from Kopar to Thane but the said ticket was lost in the untoward incident. 3. The defence of Respondent-Railways was that the statutory investigation report dated 18 th December 2019 prepared by Mumbai Division reflects that deceased was knocked down by a train while trespassing the tracks on 9 th July 2018 at about 21.40 hours between Kopar and Diva stations on Up Line at KM No.46/10 – 46/11 and that the victim was found lying on up / through track. It was denied that deceased was a bona fide passenger as no valid ticket was recovered upon search by GRPF from the body of deceased. 4. The Applicant examined herself and deposed as per the contents of her Application. She deposed that on 9 th July 2018, the deceased had purchased second class railway return ticket from Kopar to Thane in her presence and thereafter both boarded local train in different compartments. She has deposed that both alighted at Thane Station and the deceased told her that he was going to meet Mukadam for some work and she left for her work. She has further deposed that on 9 th July 2018, deceased started his return journey by local train from Thane to Kopar holding a valid second class railway ticket and when the train reached between Kopar and Diva stations, the deceased fell down from train. She has deposed that ticket was lost during the course of untoward incident. She has further deposed that on 9 th July 2018, deceased started his return journey by local train from Thane to Kopar holding a valid second class railway ticket and when the train reached between Kopar and Diva stations, the deceased fell down from train. She has deposed that ticket was lost during the course of untoward incident. She has further deposed that on 10 th July 2018 when she reached home, her son was not at home and after 5 to 6 days she lodged a missing complaint with Ramnagar Police Station, Dombivali East. She has deposed that on 14 th August 2018 she had gone to Dombivali Railway Police Station to make inquiry and at that time she was informed that deceased had fallen down from running train. In support of her deposition, she has produced the true copies of station master’s memo, inquest panchnama, post mortem report, photocopies of ration card, Aadhar card and bank passbook. 5. In the cross examination, she has admitted that she had seen the deceased at Thane at about 8.00 p.m. and thereafter he left to meet his mukaram and did not return home for about 20 days. She has admitted that copy of missing complaint filed by her is not available with her. She has stated that after a period of 10 days she was called by Dombivali Railway police to identify the photograph of deceased and nothing was recovered from the possession of deceased. 6. Respondent–Railways examined the motorman of Train No.S-52 and the guard of Train No.S-52. The motorman has deposed that on 9 th July 2018 when his train was passing between Kopar and Diva, he suddenly saw a person standing on the up/through track and that he immediately applied the emergency break and blew the whistle. In spite thereof, the person was knocked down by his train at KM 46/10. He has further deposed that he informed his guard about the incident on the intercom and after halting the train, guard tried to locate the person but as it was raining heavily and it was dark, the person could not be located. He further deposed that after halting on the spot for 2 minutes, he proceeded as per the advice of controller. In support of his evidence, he submitted the working diary of the day. His testimony has not been shaken in the cross-examination. He further deposed that after halting on the spot for 2 minutes, he proceeded as per the advice of controller. In support of his evidence, he submitted the working diary of the day. His testimony has not been shaken in the cross-examination. The witness has maintained that there was no platform given on the parallel Kopar line near the place of incident. 7. The guard in his deposition has corroborated the testimony given by motorman. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he did not de-board his train and had informed the chief controller and put the memo informing the incident. 8. The Trial Court upon consideration of evidence on record has answered the issues as to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train and the death of deceased occurring as a result of untoward incident against the Appellant and dismissed the claim Application. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant would submit that the investigation report of untoward incident records that person was knocked down by an unknown train and was lying injured. He would submit that therefore the incident deposed by motorman is not corroborated by the investigation report. He would further submit that the inquest panchnama also shows that deceased was knocked down by an unknown train while he was crossing the railway track. He would take this Court through the evidence of motorman and would submit that motorman has deposed about the incident which had occurred at KM-46/10 and does not relate to the incident in the present case. He submits that DRM’s report is required to be prepared within a period of 60 days under Rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incident) Rules, 2020. He would submit that it is settled position in law that mere absence of ticket will not negative the claim that deceased was a bona fide passenger. He would further submit that Apex Court in the case of Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. General Manager, South-East Central Railway, [ 2018 ACJ 1460 .] has held that Rule 7 mandates Railway Authority to investigate into the untoward incident and as no inquiry was conducted immediately after the incident, had therefore allowed the Application. He would further submit that Apex Court in the case of Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. General Manager, South-East Central Railway, [ 2018 ACJ 1460 .] has held that Rule 7 mandates Railway Authority to investigate into the untoward incident and as no inquiry was conducted immediately after the incident, had therefore allowed the Application. He would further submit that in the present case, the Appellant had discharged the initial burden of proving that deceased had bought the valid railway ticket and boarded the train and therefore onus shifted on Railways. In support of his case, he relies upon following decisions : Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. General Manager, South-East Central Railway, [ 2018 ACJ 1460 .] Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C. P. Joshi, [ AIR 2011 SC 1127 .] Sanyokta Devi v. Union of India, [2023 (2) T.A.C. 16 (S.C.).] Rekha Dilip Sapkale v. Union of India, [ 2022 ACJ 349 .] ; and Union of India v. Rina Devi , (2019) 3 SCC 572 . 10. Per contra Ms. Leena Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent–Railways would submit that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the death had not occasioned by reason of untoward incident. She would further submit that objection as to Rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (manner of investigation of untoward incident) Rules, 2020 was not taken before the Railway Claims Tribunal and cannot be raised for the first time before this Court. She would submit that final investigation report was prepared on 28th September 2018 and the investigation had started on 9 th July 2018. She would further submit that the Appellant has stated that the deceased and she alighted at Thane station and then they both left for their respective work. She submits that though the Appellant has deposed that on 9 th July 2018, the deceased started his journey by local train from Thane to Kopar, the Trial Court has rightly noted that neither the Applicant has filed the missing complaint report nor examined any eye-witness. In support of her case, she relies upon decision in the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi (supra). 11. In rejoinder, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant would submit that in the written statement, Railways have failed to identify their own train. 12. In support of her case, she relies upon decision in the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi (supra). 11. In rejoinder, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant would submit that in the written statement, Railways have failed to identify their own train. 12. Following points arise for determination : (1) Whether the finding of the Railway Tribunal that the death is not occasioned by reason of untoward incident is sustainable ? (2) Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger ? As to Point Nos.1 and 2: 13. In event, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Appellant, then Point No.2 will have to be considered as to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger. 14. Before proceeding to the facts, it will be apposite to refer to the relevant statutory provisions. Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 defines an ‘untoward incident’, which reads thus: “123. (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); or (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; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers .” 15. Section 124-A 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 clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso and reads thus: “124-A. 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; and (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 untword incident.” 16. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 129 of Railways Act, The Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 have been framed. Rule 3 provides that any railway servant, including guard and driver of the train, on coming to know of occurrence of an untoward incident shall report the same to the nearest Station Superintendent. The Station Superintendent shall report such incident to the Divisional Security Commissioner in prescribed ‘Form-I’ as per Rule 4. Under Rule 6, the Station Superintendent shall make necessary entries in the station diary and make brief report to the Divisional Office, Zonal Railways, police and Divisional Security Commissioner of the Railway Protection Force. The Station Superintendent shall report such incident to the Divisional Security Commissioner in prescribed ‘Form-I’ as per Rule 4. Under Rule 6, the Station Superintendent shall make necessary entries in the station diary and make brief report to the Divisional Office, Zonal Railways, police and Divisional Security Commissioner of the Railway Protection Force. Under Section 7, the officer of the Force on receipt of report under Rule 6 shall carry out the investigation within sixty days and submit report to Divisional Security Commissioner of the Force. Similarly under Rule 8, the police are required to initiate investigation and prepare inquest report. The reports prepared by the police shall be forwarded to the Magistrate and the report prepared by the Force shall be forwarded by the Divisional Security Commissioner to Divisional Railway Manager within fifteen days of receipt of report of investigation from the Force under Rule 10. Under Rule 11, the Divisional Railway Manager may either accept the report of the Force and pass order or direct further investigation by the Force. If the report is accepted, the order passed shall be communicated to the Station Superintendent for necessary entries to be made in the station dairy. Under Rule 13, the investigation report alongwith the acceptance by Divisional Railway Manager is required to be sent to the Claim office, which on receipt of notice of claim shall submit the Divisional Railway Manager’s report to the concerned Bench of Railway Tribunal along with the written statement. 17. The gist of the Rules reproduced above demonstrates complete procedure to be followed for investigation of untoward incident commencing from report by the railway servant, making entries in Station dairy, investigation by the police and Force and order of Divisional Railway Manager. 18. The claim of the Appellant has been dismissed on both the counts of not being a bona fide passenger and the death not occurring as a result of untoward incident. The procedure reproduced above would show that on the occurrence of untoward incident, Railway servant including the guard and driver of the train are required to report the same to the nearest station superintendent. The procedure reproduced above would show that on the occurrence of untoward incident, Railway servant including the guard and driver of the train are required to report the same to the nearest station superintendent. If facts of the present case are seen, the Railways have examined the motorman and guard of the train who have corroborated each other’s testimony that on 9 th July 2018 when their train was passing between Kopar and Diva stations, they suddenly saw a person standing on the up / through track and that the motorman had immediately applied the emergency break but the person was knocked down. In support of their deposition, copy of the working diary of train was produced by the motorman. Perusal of the same would indicate that there is a reference to two incidents in the said diary. The second incident refers to Train No.S-52 and the location is KM 46/10 and it is recorded that a person was noticed on the Railway track and before the train could stop at about 23.26 hours, the person was knocked down by the train. The guard’s memo book produced by guard also makes a mention of the said incident taking place. The Stationmaster’s memo also records that a person had been knocked down by the train while trespassing. Similarly, inquest panchnama also makes note of the incident having occurred while crossing railway track. 19. The deposition of Appellant is that on 9 th July 2018, the deceased had started his return journey by local train from Thane to Kopar. However, the oral evidence of Appellant has been sufficiently rebutted by Railways by producing the evidence of motorman and guard who have deposed that deceased was knocked down by the train while crossing railway track. In the cross-examination, the Appellant has admitted that she had seen the deceased at about 8.00 p.m. and thereafter he left to meet his Mukadam at Thane and did not return for about 20 days. The admission in the cross-examination is fatal to the case of Appellant that the deceased had boarded local train from Thane to Kopar on 9 th July 2018. The admission in the cross-examination proves that she had seen the deceased at Thane at about 8.00 p.m. in the evening and had thereafter not seen him for about 20 days. The admission in the cross-examination is fatal to the case of Appellant that the deceased had boarded local train from Thane to Kopar on 9 th July 2018. The admission in the cross-examination proves that she had seen the deceased at Thane at about 8.00 p.m. in the evening and had thereafter not seen him for about 20 days. Though it is sought to be emphasised by learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that investigation report states that deceased was knocked down by an unknown train, in the light of evidence on record of motorman and guard of train No.S-52 that the deceased was knocked down by their train, which testimony has not been shaken in the cross-examination, the mere mention of an unknown train in the investigation report will not assist the case of Appellant. 20. Pertinently, in the statement recorded by RPF, the Appellant has stated that after reaching Thane Station she had left for her work and the deceased had informed her that he was going to meet his mukadam for work. The evidence of Appellant does not establish that the deceased had boarded the train from Thane to Kopar. AW-1 had not seen the deceased after they alighted at Thane and no other person has been examined to prove that the deceased had boarded the train. On the other hand, Railways have produced evidence to establish that the deceased was run over by Train No.S-52. There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of working diary. 21. As regards the contention that Rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incident) Rules, 2020 provides that the police shall prepare a detailed accident report and submit a copy of the same to the Divisional Security Commissioner within 60 days from the date of untoward incident for onward submission to the Divisional Railway Commissioner, in the present case, report has been submitted on 18 th December 2019. The report records the investigation which is carried out immediately after the accident on 9 th July 2018. Rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incident) Rules, 2020 does not provide for any consequence in event of report being submitted beyond the period of 60 days and therefore the same are directory. What is mandated is that there should be an investigation and submission of report. 22. Rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incident) Rules, 2020 does not provide for any consequence in event of report being submitted beyond the period of 60 days and therefore the same are directory. What is mandated is that there should be an investigation and submission of report. 22. In the decision relied upon by learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant in case of Kalandi Charan Sahoo v. General Manager, South- East Central Railway (supra), the accident had taken place in the year 2005 and no inquiry was conducted under Rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incident) Rules, 2020 and only when the claim was filed in the year 2009, the investigation was ordered which investigation revealed that deceased had de-trained from the moving train and invited the accident. In the peculiar facts of that case where no inquiry as mandated by Rules was conducted immediately after incident, the Apex Court has held that the Appellants are entitled to compensation. The said decision cannot be pressed into service as an absolute proposition of law that non completion of investigation within a period of 60 days would vitiate the report. 23. In the light of above discussion, Point No.1 is answered against the Appellant. As to Point No.2. 24. Considering that it has been held that the death has not been occasioned by reason of untoward incident, it is not necessary for this Court to consider whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger.Resultantly, First Appeal stands dismissed.