[2025:RJ-JP:50868] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 823/2010 1. Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Sunder Lal, aged about 26 years. 2. Sonu Kumar S/o Late Shri Sunder Lal, aged about 23 years. Both R/o H No.48-K-1, Village Bhoop Seda, Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar (Rajasthan). ----Appellant Versus 1. Union of India through the General Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. Smt. Vimla Devi W/o Shri Kailash aged about 34 years R/o Pratapgarh, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar. 3. Smt. Sushila Devi W/o Shri Rajesh aged about 32 years R/o Baldevgarh, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar. 4. Smt. Bala W/o Shri Ram Babu, aged about 24 years R/o Bandikui District Dausa. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajay Shukla assisted by Ms. Jyoti Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.C. Sharma assisted by Ms. Arpita Joshi Mr. Vinay Mathur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 1. Date of conclusion of Arguments 16.12.2025 2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 16.12.2025 3. Whether the full judgment or only operative part is pronounced Full 4. Date of pronouncement 16.01.2026 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants namely Sanjay Kumar and Sonu Kumar, both sons of Late Shri Sunder Lal (deceased), under Section 23 of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1987’ for short) challenging the impugned order dated 24.12.2009 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as (2 of 20) [CMA-823/2010] ‘learned Tribunal’ for short), Jaipur Bench, in OA-II-76-2006, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants was dismissed for the reasons as mentioned in the order impugned. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr.Ajay Shukla assisted by Ms.Jyoti Sharma, submitted that the deceased, Sunder Lal, died while he was trying to board the Train No.187 (Jaipur- Hisar Fast Passenger) for his journey from Khairtal to Bhiwani on the unfortunate date i.e. 01.03.2006. It is submitted that on the said date, the deceased, who was a class-IV employee, had purchased a valid second class ticket, however, while boarding the train, he could not hold the handle bars of the gate, lost his balance and slipped inside the railway track, on account of which, he sustained grievous injuries, resulting in death at the spot. Learned counsel submitted that the incident was reported by the railway authorities, on account of which, an FIR bearing No.9/2006 was registered. Initially the identity of the deceased was not known, however, upon recovery of certain documents from cloths of the deceased, the family members were informed, and thereafter, the police conducted the investigation and concluded that while boarding the train, the deceased could not catch the handle of the gate and lost his balance, on account of which, he slipped inside the railway tracks due to which his neck was cut and he died on the spot. 3. Learned counsel submitted that for the said incident, the legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 16 of the Act of 1987 read with Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1989’ for short) seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- along-with interest (3 of 20) [CMA-823/2010] for the alleged ‘untoward incident’ that occurred while the deceased was boarding the train. 4. Learned counsel submitted that on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed three issues:- issue No.1 pertained to whether the deceased was carrying a valid second class railway journey ticket and was a bona-fide passenger of the said train; issue No.2 related to whether the deceased accidentally fell from the train, on account of which he sustained multiple grievous injuries and died on the spot, and therefore, whether the claimants were entitled to compensation under Section 123(c) (2) of the Act of 1989. To support the claim, the claimants got examined a witness namely Munna Khan, whose statement was recorded on 15.12.2009. 5. Learned counsel submitted that the material witnesses strongly supported their case. 6. It is further submitted that the witness Munna Khan (Hawker) specifically supported the case of appellants, as he was the eye witness who saw the incident and there is no infirmity in his statement as recorded by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel further submitted that the statement of one constable of the RPF, namely Balwan Singh S/o Om Prakash was recorded, however, the same is based on hearsay evidence, wherein it was stated that the deceased committed suicide. Although no witness more specifically an eye witness of the incident was produced in evidence to support this version of the constable Balwan Singh. Learned counsel further submitted that in the absence of any relevant witness or documentary evidence, it was falsely presented by the respondent-railway before the learned Tribunal (4 of 20) [CMA-823/2010] that the deceased committed suicide and further that the claim is not maintainable, as the deceased was a passenger and he was not carrying valid train ticket for any journey. 7. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Tribunal framed three issues and the said issues were decided against the appellants and in favour of the respondent-railway, and consequently, the claim was dismissed. Learned counsel submitted that just because the ticket could not be found on the body of the deceased at that time, the erroneous conclusion was drawn that the deceased was not a bona-fide passenger and therefore in terms of the Act of 1989, appellants are not entitled for the compensation. 8. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jameela Vs. Union of India1. Relevant paras of the judgment are quoted hereunder:- “7. It is not denied by the Railway that M. Hafeez fell down from the train and died while travelling on it on a valid ticket. He was, therefore, clearly a "passenger" for the purpose of section 124A as clarified by the Explanation. It is now to be seen, that under section 124A the liability to pay compensation is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration. But the proviso to the section says that the railway administration would have no liability to pay any compensation in case death of the passenger or injury to him was caused due to any of the reasons enumerated in clauses (a) to (e). 8. Coming back to the case in hand, it is not the case of the Railway that the death of M. Hafeez was a case of suicide or a result of self-inflicted injury. It is also not the case that he died due to his own criminal act or he was in a state of intoxication or he was insane, or he died due to any natural cause or disease. His falling down from the train was, thus, clearly accidental. 1. (2010) 12 SCC 443 (5 of 20) [CMA-823/2010] 9. The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the Railway, the deceased was standing at the open door of the train compartment from where he fell down, is called by the railway itself as negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon on Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to section 124 A. A criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the railway must fail even after assuming everything in its favour. 10. We are, therefore, constrained to interfere in the matter. The judgment and order of the High Court coming under appeal is set aside and the judgment and order of the Tribunal is restored. Since a period of more than 10 years has already elapsed from the date of the judgment of the Tribunal, the compensation money along with interest need not be kept in fixed deposits, but should be paid to the appellants in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal. The payment must be made within 2 months from today. 9. In support of this argument, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs Rina Devi2, wherein the Apex Court has held that the death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding of a train will be an ‘untoward incident’, which entitles the victim for compensation. Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced below:- “Re: (ii) Application of Principle of Strict Liability Concept of Self-Inflicted Injury 20. From the judgments cited at the Bar we do not see any conflict on the applicability of the principle of strict liability. Sections 124 and Section 124A provide that compensation is payable whether or not there has been wrongful act, neglect or fault on the part of the railway administration in the case of an accident or in the case 2. 2019(3) SCC 572 (6 of 20) [CMA-823/2010] of an ‘untoward incident’. Only exceptions are those provided under proviso to Section 124A. In Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra) it was held that Section 124A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Where principle of strict liability applies, proof of negligence is not required. This principle has been reiterated in Jameela (supra). 21. Coming to the proviso to Section 124A to the effect that no compensation is payable if passenger dies or suffers injury due to the situations mentioned therein, there is no difficulty as regards suicide or attempted suicide in which case no compensation may be payable. Conflict of opinions in High Courts has arisen on understanding the expression ‘self inflicted injury’ in the proviso. In some decisions it has been held that injury or death because of negligence of the victim was at par with self inflicted injury. We may refer to the decisions of High Courts of Kerala in Joseph PT (supra), Bombay in Pushpa (supra) and Delhi in Shayam Narayan (supra) on this point. […] 25. We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of ‘self inflicted injury’ would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on ‘no fault theory’. We may in this connection refer to judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Sunil Kumar34 laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on ‘no fault theory’ under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an ‘untoward incident’ entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor. […] 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 (7 of 20) [CMA-823/2010] be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly.” 10. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that mere absence of a ticket with the injured or deceased will not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona-fied passenger. 11. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kamukayi & Ors. Vs Union of India3, wherein the similar controversy was examined by the Hon’ble Apex Court and it was held that just because during recovery ticket was not found, the compensation cannot be denied. Relevant para of the judgment is quoted hereunder:- “18. […] Considering the material brought on record, in our view, the initial burden that the deceased passenger was having a valid ticket has been discharged shifting onus on the Railway Administration to disprove the said fact. Nothing has been placed before Claims Tribunal or brought on record during the course of hearing that the Railway Administration has discharged the burden of not having the valid railway ticket with the deceased passenger, except to say that during recovery ticket was not found. In absence of any cogent evidence, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation as prescribed.” 12. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Doli Rani Saha Vs. Union of India4, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the judgment passed in the case of Rina Devi (supra) and held that mere absence of ticket with the injured or deceased cannot negate the claim that the deceased was a bona-fide passenger. Relevant paras of the judgment are quoted below:- “13. From the recapitulation of the various judicial pronouncements leading to the present appeal, it can be 3 (2023) 19 SCC 116 4 (2024) 9 SCC 656. (8 of 20) [CMA-823/2010] 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. 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.” 13. Apart from above, learned counsel also relied upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Ramesh Kumar and Anr. Vs. Union of India5, wherein the facts were almost similar, as the ticket was not found on the body of the deceased and the Court, after considering the 5 S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1215/2022 decided on 06.12.2025 (9 of 20) [CMA-823/2010] legislative intent of the Sections 123(c)(2) & 124A of the Act of 1989, held that mere non recovery of a travel ticket specifically in the cases where deceased body was found in a crushed condition cannot be a ground to deny the compensation and accordingly the claimants were held entitled for compensation. 14. Lastly, learned counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India vs. Teeju Devi and Anr.6, where again the Co- ordinate Bench considered and examined Section 124-A of the Act of 1989 and maintained the compensation. 15. On the basis of the above cited judgments, learned counsel submitted that the findings as recorded by the learned Tribunal in respect of issue Nos.1, 2 & 3 are erroneous as the claimants through the evidence of an eye witness Munna Khan fairly proved that the deceased was trying to board the train, however, accidentally slipped inside the railway tracks and died on the spot. Lastly, learned counsel prayed that the order passed by the learned Tribunal be quashed and set aside and the claim petition be allowed. 16. Per contra, Mr.P.C.Sharma learned counsel appearing for the respondent-railway strongly opposed the rival submissions by contending that the learned Tribunal has not committed any mistake while rejecting the claim petition while passing the reasoned order/judgment dated 24.12.2009. Learned counsel further submitted that the reasoned findings have been recorded by the learned Tribunal while deciding the three issues and no mistake has been committed. Learned counsel submitted that 6 SB CMA No.650/2019 decided on 20.11.2021 (10 of 20) [CMA-823/2010] Sections 123, 124 & 124-A of the Act of 1989 are relevant for the present issue. Learned counsel submitted that Section 123(2) provides for compensation in case of accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Learned counsel submitted that Section 123(2) read with Section 124 and 124-A of the Act of 1989 provides that the respondent-railway is liable to pay compensation, where the negligence is on the part of the railway, however, Section 124-A specifically provides that no compensation shall be payable by the railway administration in case the passenger dies or suffers injury due to the suicide or attempted suicide, self inflicted injury, his own criminal act and any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity etc. 17. Learned counsel further submitted that in the present case, the deceased was not a passenger as no valid ticket was found from his body at the relevant time and he actually committed suicide, as he was under some financial burden on account of some loans which he had taken from some financial Institution. To support this fact, learned counsel referred to the statement of one constable Balwan Singh who specifically stated that no valid ticket was found from the body of the deceased and further the family members of the deceased also informed that the deceased committed suicide. Learned counsel also referred to the statement of the Station Master of Khairtal, Rajesh Kumar Meena, who supported the case of the respondent-railway. 18. Learned counsel submitted that the police while conducting the investigation failed to recover any ticket from the body of the deceased, however, some papers pertaining to bank loan were recovered and on the basis of the information as collected from (11 of 20) [CMA-823/2010] the family members, it was rightly concluded that the deceased committed suicide and therefore, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation. In support of his argument, learned counsel relied upon certain judgments passed by the Delhi High Court, Gauhati High Court as well as the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein claim for the compensation was denied in absence of a valid ticket. 19. The first judgment as cited was passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India v Birharamwati @ Birmati7, wherein the Court while examining Section 124-A held that since the claimants could not prove that the deceased was a bona-fide passenger, therefore, he was not entitled for the claim. Relevant para of the judgment is quoted as under:- “8. A civil case is decided on the balance of probabilities. The preponderance of probabilities show that the deceased has not been proved to be a Bonafide passenger because no train ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased. There is also no eye witness as regards a fall of the deceased from the train. Also, as stated above, it is a bit difficult to accept that no one in a train filled of passengers pulled the chain, if the deceased had really fallen down from the train and that not even a single person reported the untoward incident of fall of the deceased from the train if there had happened one. The aforesaid aspects have to be taken with the fact that the body of the deceased is found lying just near Shahdara Railway Station and the fact that the testimony of AW-2 Satish Kumar (uncle) lacks credibility because for a short distance of travel no one comes to leave a passenger to the railway station.” 20. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Poonam and Ors.8, wherein the Court examined the untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Act of 1989 and held 7 FAO No. 135/2012 decided on 24.04.2014 8 FAO No. 57 of 2021 and CM Appl 5340 OF 2021 decided on 04.01.2024 (12 of 20) [CMA-823/2010] that the deceased was stuck by a running train while crossing the railway tracks, not having any ticket, therefore not a passenger and hence not entitled for any compensation. The relevant para of the judgment is quoted below:- “10. It stares on the face of the record that no railway ticket was found from the possession or jamatalashi of the deceased. Evidently, the wife of the deceased was not an eye-witness to the incident but the family member of the deceased including Vinod Kumar and others who had gone to attend the wedding in the family. The post mortem report also brings out that the deceased had suffered a crush injury 20x21 inches left side of the head and his skull was impacted with blunt impact, abrasions on the right shoulder joint, lacerated wound on the right side chest, multiple abrasion on the left upper limbs as well as lower limbs and left leg and both legs fractured that would raise an inference that the deceased died as a result of being hit by a running train while he was probably crossing the railway tracks. Merely because the DRM report was made belatedly on 01.07.2019, does not create any substantive legal right in favour of the respondents/ claimants.” 21. Learned counsel further cited the judgment passed by the Gauhati High Court in the case of Union of India v Smti. Lakhi Prava Sonowal Keot9, where the appeal filed by the respondent- railway was allowed and the compensation award was set aside. Learned counsel submitted that the Gauhati High Court set aside the compensation award while examining the term ‘untoward incident’ under Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Act of 1989. The relevant paras of the judgment are quoted below:- “27. The Explanation to Section 124 (A) clarifies that the word 'passenger' includes a railway servant on duty and the person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling 9 MFA No. 231 of 2019 decided on 02.02.2024 (13 of 20) [CMA-823/2010] in a train or platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident. As such, there ticket to travel, ii) a person who holds a railway pass to travel and iii) a person who holds a platform ticket. In each of the category so long as the person is in railway Premises or a train, is taken as a passenger. His or her presence in the railway premises or a train is taken as authorized. However, it does not amount to become a victim of an untoward incident. 28. On a reading of the definition as aforesaid, still the word 'untoward incident' would mean only that there must be an accidental falling of the passenger as aforesaid from a train carrying passengers. 29. In the present case, the admitted position of the case is that the body of the deceased was recovered near the railway track. Nobody has seen the deceased falling from any train and no valid ticket or railway pass or platform ticket was found from the dead body of the deceased. 30. It is true that Section 123 (C) of the Railways Act should receive liberal construction. But we cannot carry that matter to the point where if the facts as established would show that the incident cannot be brought under 'untoward incident'. The law requires the accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. Even then this is not a case where a passenger was trying to board a train and he falls by way of an accidental fall from the train. In the facts of the case, even accepting all that has been stated by the respondent claimant, in spite of that we cannot bring the case of the deceased as ill-fated passenger who fell down from the train. 30.1. In the case in hand, as I have already stated that the deceased was not having a valid ticket for travelling on the fateful day. It is also not proved that there was any accidental falling of the deceased from a train carrying passengers, no eye witness was examined by the respondent claimant to prove that they had seen the deceased had purchased any ticket from his journey from Dhemaji to North Lakhimpur in Inter City Express DN 15164 and he had accidentally fell down from the said train in between Baginadi and Gogamuk railway station. Under such backdrop, this court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for compensation under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989.” 22. Lastly, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Madan Mohan Gautam v. Union of India10, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench 10 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 853/2008, decided on 11.07.2025 (14 of 20) [CMA-823/2010] dismissed the appeal of the claimant after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rina Devi (supra) and Kamukayi & Ors. (supra). Relevant para of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “20. It is true that provisions for granting compensation to a bona fide passenger injured in an untoward accident while traveling by train are beneficial in nature, but such beneficial legislation cannot be interpreted as being charitable, nor can money be handed out as compensation based on mere claims without requisite pleadings and evidence of probative worth. Regarding the cases cited by the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant, namely Rina Devi (supra) and Kamukayi & Ors. (supra), there is no dispute with regard to the legal propositions laid down in those judgments. However, a bare perusal of the record in this case, aforesaid judgments are clearly distinguishable on the facts” 23. On the basis of the above cited judgments, learned counsel prayed that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error while dismissing the claim petition, as filed by the appellants. 24. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 25. This Court considered the judgments as cited by both the respective counsels and noted that the issue as involved in the case is well settled and is no more res-integra. Section 123, 124-A being relevant for the present issue are reproduced as under:- “123. Definitions.—In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,— (a) “accident” means an accident of the nature described in section 124; (b) “dependant” means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:— (i) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent; (ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a pre- deceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger; (15 of 20) [CMA-823/2010] (iii) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger; (iv) the paternal grand parent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger; (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.]. 124A. 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 dependant 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— (16 of 20) [CMA-823/2010] (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 untoward incident.” 26. Section 123(c)(2) defines the term “untoward incident”, where the passenger accidentally falls from the passengers train. In order to claim compensation, the claimants have to prove that the injured/deceased is a passenger by way of sufficient evidence, however, Section 124-A restricts the payment of any compensation in case where the injured or the deceased committed suicide or attempted to suicide, suffered self inflicted injuries, injuries due to his own criminal act, and any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity etc. 27. In the present case, the deceased, as per the claim petition and the statement of the material witness Munna Khan (an eye witness), was trying to board the Train No.187 (Jaipur-Hisar Fast Passenger) for his journey from Khairtal to Bhiwani, however, he could not hold the handle bars and slipped inside the railway tracks, where his neck was cut and died on the spot. This fact was clearly supported and proved by evidence of important witness Munna Khan (hawker), who was present on the railway station at the time of the incident and his evidence remained consistent. The respondent-railway failed to produce any witness or evidence to discard the veracity of the statement of this witness. 28. This Court noted that the witness Munna Khan supported the version of the claimants, however, the witness as produced by the respondent-railway in the form of Constable Balwan Singh, failed to support the version of the respondent-railway, as he himself stated that he gave his affidavit on the basis of hearsay evidence (17 of 20) [CMA-823/2010] and he was not present at the time of the incident. This version cannot support the theory set up by the respondent-railway and therefore this witness failed to support the respondent-railway. This Court also considered that another witness Rajesh Kumar Meena who was not even present at the time of the incident, though produced before the learned Tribunal also failed to support the version. There is no evidence on record, as shown to this Court by learned counsel for the respondent-railway, which may prove that the deceased committed suicide and so claimants are not entitled for the compensation. 29. Whatever investigation was done in the case by the Government Railway Police (GRP), Alwar shows that it is on the basis of some hearsay evidence, it was recorded that the deceased was under some mental stress on account of some financial liability towards some bank, and therefore, he committed suicide. Although this version was presented before the Tribunal also, however, no witness was produced to support this theory. 30. The basic issue which needs to be examined by the Court under Sections 123 and 124-A of the Act of 1989 as to whether in the given facts and circumstances, the claimants are entitled for compensation, where the ticket could not be found at the time when the body was recovered. 31. The first judgment in respect of the similar controversy passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court was the case of Rina Devi (supra), where the ticket was not found and a common objection regarding entitlement for the claim was raised by the respondent- railway, however, the Court held that mere absence of ticket cannot negate the claim that the deceased was a bona-fide (18 of 20) [CMA-823/2010] passenger. The judgment of Rina Devi (supra) was further considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Doli Rani Saha (supra), where the Court held that mere absence of a ticket with such injured or deceased will not negate the claim that he was a bona-fide passenger. The initial burden will be on the claimants, which can be discharged by filing of an affidavit, the relevant facts and the burden will then shift on the railway administration and accordingly the issue to be decided in the present case. 32. This Court after considering the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rina Devi (supra) and Doli Rani Saha (supra) found that though the ticket could not be found at that time, however, there is no document or cogent evidence to prove that the deceased was mentally unstable, on account of which he committed suicide. 33. This Court minutely considered Exhibit A/3 - final report prepared under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and it bears the conclusion that while boarding the train, the deceased could not hold the bars/handle, lost balance, and therefore, he slipped inside the railway tracks and died on the spot. The relevant part of the conclusion is quoted hereunder:- “e`rd lqanjyky pyrh Vzsu xkMh la[;k 187 es p<rs oDr gRFkk idMs ugh tkus ij vkmV lkbM es cSysUl fcxM tkus ij fMCcs dh pisV ls Vdjk dj Vzsu ds uhps fxj tkus ls Vzsu ls xnZu dV dj o xaHkhj pksV yxus ls [kwu T;knk cgus ls e`rd lqanjyky dh ekSr Vzsu 187 dh pisV es vkus ls ik;h x;h gSA ” 34. According to this Court, the evidence of an eye witness Munna Khan (Hawker) remained uncontroverted and he is the only eye witness, whereas the witnesses as produced by the (19 of 20) [CMA-823/2010] respondent-railway were neither relevant nor were eye witness of the incident and therefore there evidence could not be considered to reject the claim of the claimants. 35. This Court also considered the findings as recorded by the learned Tribunal in respect of issue No.1 as to whether the deceased was a bona-fide passenger of a train or not. 36. On the basis of the final report as prepared under Section 174 Cr.P.C., statement of material witness Munna Khan and absence of any contrary reliable witness of the respondent-railway, this Court reaches to the definite conclusion that the deceased was a bona-fide passenger and died as he slipped inside the railway tracks, as he lost the balance while boarding the passengers train. 37. In view of the above discussion, the findings as recorded in respect of issue No.1 are held to be perverse and the same are quashed. This Court also considered the findings as recorded by the learned Tribunal in respect of Issue No.2, which was framed as to whether in terms of Section 123(c)(2) of the Act of 1989, the deceased suffered an ‘untoward incident’ and entitled for compensation in terms of Issue No.3. The judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rina Devi and Doli Rani Saha (supra) have settled the controversy, where the Apex Court held that the claim cannot be denied in absence of a train ticket. In view of the above, the findings of issue No.2 are quashed. 38. The claimants and the evidence of relevant witnesses of the investigation as done by the police under Section 174 Cr.P.C. has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was a bona- fide passenger and died because of the untoward incident and (20 of 20) [CMA-823/2010] therefore the claimants are entitled for the compensation in terms of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Act of 1989. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the judgment impugned dated 24.12.2009 passed by the learned Tribunal is quashed and set aside. 39. The appellants are held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The amount of compensation be deposited by the respondents within a period of eight weeks before the learned Tribunal. On deposition of the claim amount, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the same in terms of Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2020. 40. The appeal is allowed accordingly. 41. No order as to costs. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J Monika