ORDER : 1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. Claimant is in appeal against the order/ judgment passed by Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, in Case No. TTU40018/04 by which the claim application filed on behalf of the appellant for the death of her husband in a railway accident, has been rejected. After the rejection of the application, appellant preferred Review Case No.REV/RNC/2010/0005 which was also rejected. 2. As per the case of the appellant, the deceased-Harish Chandra Jha was returning from Kolkata to Jasidih on 25.12.2003 on a valid ticket by Train No.3023 up Howrah - Gaya Express. As the train bogie was overcrowded, he was standing near the gate of the compartment from which he accidentally fell down at Village Santhali and died on spot. However, U.D. case being G.R.P.S. Case No.35/2003 was registered by Railway Police Station, Jasidih and in the inquest report, it was noted that the deceased had died in the railway accident. 3. The claim application was rejected by the learned Tribunal mainly on the ground that in a fall from running train, head of the deceased is rarely affected and also that railway ticket was not found of his person. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of appellant that there was a definite finding of the Police in Jasidish G.R.P.S. Case No.35/2003 registered on the date of accident i.e. 25.12.2003, that accident had occurred when the deceased was hit by the pole while travelling in train, resulting in head injury. 5. In view of the definite finding in enquiry by the police regarding cause of death to be accidental from the moving train, the finding of the Tribunal that it could not have been caused in a railway accident, was perverse and without any basis. 6. It is also argued that widow of the deceased after loosing her husband in the accident was not in proper physical and mental condition to lead evidence and therefore review application was filed seeking permission to adduce evidence. But sufficient opportunity was not allowed to lead evidence. 7. It is argued by learned counsel for the respondent- Railways that there was no evidence that the deceased was a bona-fide passenger on the train as no ticket was found on his person. Further, nature of the injury also showed that the death was not as a result of railway accident. 8. 7. It is argued by learned counsel for the respondent- Railways that there was no evidence that the deceased was a bona-fide passenger on the train as no ticket was found on his person. Further, nature of the injury also showed that the death was not as a result of railway accident. 8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and on perusal of the materials on record, it is evident that the deceased Harish Chandra Jha died on 25.12.2003 when his dead body was found on the railway track as per the inquest report prepared by the railway police. 9. Jasidih G.R.P.S. Case No. 35 of 2003 was registered on 25.12.2003 on the basis of the written report lodged by K. Shashidharan, SRPO (Admn), Rajmahal Area, ECL , P.O. Bara, Simra, District Godda, wherein it has been specifically stated that the death occurred when the deceased was hit by electrical pole while he was travelling on the train. In the inquest report in Column-8, the cause of death is attributed to the railway accident. Further, in the report submitted under Section 174 Cr.P.C. on enquiry, it has been stated that the cause of death was due to fall from a running train. In the teeth of these clinching evidences, and without any contrary evidence, it is somewhat intriguing that learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the death was not accidental. The statements that such injuries are not usually caused in railway accident, are conjectures and the finding that it was not accidental in nature, is accordingly, not sustainable and is set aside. 10. Furthermore, mere absence of railway ticket cannot be a ground to reject the claim application. It has been held in Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 “Onus to prove that the deceased or injured was a bona fide passenger can be discharged even in absence of a ticket if relevant facts are shown that ticket was purchased but it was lost.” ………. The initial onus in my opinion always lies with the appellant claimants to show that there is a death due to untoward incident of a bona fide passenger. The initial onus in my opinion always lies with the appellant claimants to show that there is a death due to untoward incident of a bona fide passenger. Of course, by filing of the affidavit and depending on the facts of a particular case that initial onus can be a light onus which can shift on the Railways, however, it is not the law that even the initial onus of proof which has to be discharged is always on the Railways and not on the claimants”. 11. Accidental claim statutes are beneficial piece of legislation and strict rule of evidence and procedure do not apply. Appellant needs to be given some opportunity for the ends of justice to enable her to lead evidence on the issue that deceased was a bona-fide passenger. Impugned Judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh within three months from 2nd May 2025, after giving the appellant sufficient opportunity to lead evidence on the issue whether the deceased was a bona-fide passenger or not. 12. Miscellaneous Appeal accordingly stands disposed of.