- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6501 OF 2019 (RCT) BETWEEN: 1. BHAGYA W/O LATE RAJKUMAR @ MUDDURAJ AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS OCC: HOUSEWIFE 2. MAHALAKSHMI D/O LATE RAJKUMAR @ MUDDURAJ AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS 3. SHIVARAJ S/O LATE RAJKUMAR @ MUDDURAJ AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS 4. RAMESH S/O LATE RAJKUMAR @ MUDDURAJ AGED ABOUT 08 YEARS, 5. SUNANDA W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS (APPELLANT NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS AND REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN - APPELLANT NO.1) ALL ARE RESIDENTS AT SAIDAPURA, SAIDAPURA - TALUK YADAGIRI DISTRICT KARNATAKA - 585 221 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.M. R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 AND: UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY HUBLI - 580 020 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI, A/W MS. SWAMINI GANESH, CGC) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 23(1) OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT-1987, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.02.2018 PASSED IN OA.NO.II U 196 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the appellants/applicants against the judgment and award dated 06.02.2018 passed in OA(II-U) No.196/2013 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru. 2. The facts of the case are as follows. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 On 04.04.2013, one person by the name Rajkumar @ Mudduraj, who is the husband of appellant No. 1, and father of appellant Nos.2 to 4, and the son of appellant No. 5, was traveling as a bona fide passenger by holding a valid journey ticket bearing No.01745392 from Yadgiri to Raichur in an express train, and when the train was moving between Naryanapet Road and Chingunta railway station at KM.No.601/7-8, the said Rajkumar @ Mudduraj accidentally fell down from the train compartment, which was overcrowded, suffered fatal injuries all over his body, and ultimately succumbed to the injuries on the spot. 3. The appellants/applicants who are the legal representatives of the deceased Rajkumar @ Mudduraj filed an application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the untoward incident causing the death of the deceased. Upon the application being filed for compensation and on the summons being served, the respondent-Railway - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 Department has filed a written statement, disputing the claim and denying the liability of compensation. 4. It is contended in the written statement that the applicants have concocted a false story to make an unlawful claim, undue compensation from the railway department by producing a journey ticket after a gap of two days. It is also stated that the applicants did not know about the knowledge of the death of the deceased and they only came to know after two days. It is also further pleaded that it was not a case of accidental death; rather, it is a suspicious death, and hence the application is not maintainable and sought dismissal of the claim made by the applicants. It is also further pleaded that the application would not fall within the ambit of Section 123 (c) (2) or Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989. 5. Based on the pleadings, the Railway Claims Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration. 1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 2. Whether the deceased died due to injuries sustained in an untoward incident? 3. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased? 4. Whether the applicants are entitled for any relief and interest as prayed for in their application? If so, what relief and costs? 6. In support of their case, applicant No.1 was examined as AW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A13. The respondent did not adduce any evidence but filed Statutory Divisional Railway Manager report marked as Ex.R1. Thereafter, the matter was heard, and the claims tribunal, upon the arguments addressed by both parties, did not find favour with the application filed by the applicants and consequently dismissed the application. Aggrieved by which, the appellants who are applicants before the Tribunal are before this Court. 7. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the judgment passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law, facts, and evidence on record and the tribunal has dismissed the appeal without - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 looking into the materials and the law on the point and also the precedents. He contends that the judgment requires to be reversed; consequently, the application deserved to be allowed by granting compensation for the death of the deceased, Rajkumar @ Mudduraj. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants further contends that even according to the materials after the enquiry conducted by the railway authorities, the deceased body was found by the keyman one Manoj Kumar, Gang No.7, Narayanapet Road at 08.30 hours, which clearly states one unknown male body aged about 35 years lying between up line at KM.No.601 /7-8 between Narayanapet road and Chegunta station. Therefore, he contends that the deceased body was found on the railway track, and hence he would fall within the definition of an untoward incident and a bonafide passenger. The deceased had a valid journey ticket No.01745392 having traveled from Yadgiri railway station which, though it has been produced - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 subsequently, the claims tribunal has ignored it and has dismissed the application without considering the same. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants further contends that the tribunal is not justified in holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and did not travel by the train. The tribunal has also ignored the evidence adduced by the applicant No.1- AW1 and the documents produced therein. This clearly depicts and shows that the deceased had traveled from Yadgiri railway station along with his wife and due to the overcrowding of the passengers, the applicant No.1, i.e, AW1, boarded the ladies compartment and her husband, the deceased, boarded the general compartment. After getting down in the Raichur railway station, AW1 went in search of her husband for two hours, but she could not find him. Thereafter, she informed her brother-in-law about the missing of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants further contends that the tribunal has misconstrued the facts and has come to an erroneous - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 conclusion that the applicants have not produced the journey ticket and therefore non production of the journey ticket will deny the right of compensation and accordingly, dismiss the application which is erroneous. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants further contends that there are substantial questions of law that would arise for consideration in the appeal as to whether the tribunal is justified in holding that the non-filing of the missing complaint of the appellant No.1 would show any suspicion about the travel of the deceased in the train when the body was found after two days of the journey and three other substantial questions of law as formulated in the appeal. Therefore, he contends that the present appeal requires to be considered by framing substantial questions of law. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Railways vehemently contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the judgment passed by the tribunal, as the entire gamut of materials placed before the Tribunal - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 including the report of the DRM has been considered and in view of the fact that the entire burden of proof lies on the applicants to establish and prove the fact that as on date of occurrence of the incident, the deceased was the bona fide passenger and died due to untoward incident while traveling as a passenger in the train and the same having not been established by the applicants, the onus does not shift on the railway authorities to prove the contrary, as a primary requirement of proving these aspects lies on the applicants who come before this Court to claim compensation with regard to the death of the deceased. 12. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the applicants will have to prove that the untoward incident has occurred and the deceased was a bona fide passenger as contemplated under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, which has not been established by the applicants by leading any cogent evidence or placing materials before the Court. Under the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 circumstances, he contends that there is no error or illegality in the judgment passed by the tribunal. Consequently, seeks dismissal of the appeal. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent. 14. Apparently, the facts need not be repeated once again. But nevertheless, in view of dismissal of the application by the tribunal, it is relevant to state some of the facts narrated by the appellants before the claims tribunal. It is the case of the appellants that on 04.04.2013, the deceased was traveling on a valid railway ticket No. 01745392 by paying a sum of Rs.70/- at Yadgiri railway station and boarded the mail express train. During the course of his journey while the train was on the run from Narayanapet road and Chigunta station at KM No.601/7-8, the deceased is alleged to have accidentally fallen from the moving train. Due to the overcrowding of the passengers in the train, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Apparently, it is seen that the death - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 of the deceased is not in dispute. The unidentified person's body was found after conducting the enquiry by the railway department i.e., the DRM's report, and it clearly reveals that as per one Sri.V.A.Niloor., the body was found. Along with the GRP, a panchanama was conducted. An unknown body was found aged 35 years and a case was registered under UDR No.22/2013 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C and body was shifted to the Govt. Hospital Raichur for post mortem and as per the spot observation the deceased had fallen down from the train as he was traveling on the footboard. The enquiry report of the Divisional Railway Manager reveals as under. " SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS NO.X/35/RC/2014 Office of the Inspector, RPF/Raichur Post. Dt.27.05.2014. To, DSC/RPF/GTL Sir, Sub: -Submission of detail report in connection with claiming compensation in OA(II-U)196/13 claim for compensation for the death of RAJKUMAR RAMAKRISHNA due to fall from Un known train between NRPD-CGTA Railway station on 04.05.2013-Reg - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 Ref:- 1)CCO/HQ/SCLr.No...S/124A/3091300466/SBC/ACCID/LAGTL/ 18/03/2014 dated 19.03/02.04.2014. 2) DSC/GTLLr.No.G/XC/104/GTL-18/2014 dated. 16.04.2014. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:- As per the CCO/SC Letter No cited in the above reference the for death of RAJKUMAR RAMAKRISHNA, due to fall from Un known Train on 04.05.2013 between NRPD-CGTA Railway stations. ENQUIRIES OF THE CASE:- On 05.04.2013 prior at about 08.30 hrs a message was received from Dy.SS/NRPD@SADP Through Dy.SS/YG stating that "One unknown male dead body aged about 35 yrs lying at KM.NO: 601/7-8 between UP&DN lines between NRPD-CGTA Railway stations. On receipt of the message Sri.V.A.Niloor Con 676/YGOP and Sri.Samson RHC/073/GRP/RC with their staff attended the spot at KM.NO 601/7-8 between UP& DN Lines between NRPD- CGTA Stations and observed the spot, unknown male dead body aged about 35 years, GRP searched the deceased body not found any journey ticket GRP/RC made inquest panchanamma and registered a case in UDR.No.22/2013 U/S 174 Cr.P.C. and deceased body shifted to Govt.hospital /Raichur for PME. In this connection as per the version of on duty Con 676 a related control message was given from Yadgir GRP caused the inquiry it came to know that the deceased name is RAJKUMAR AGE 35 Years S/O.RAMAKRISHNA R/o. Sadiapur station, Yadgir (Dist) During the course of inquiry on 23.05.2014 ASIPF/YG recorded the statement of Sri.V.A.Niloor Con 676/YG.OP who was attended the spot on 05.04.2013 along with GRP/RC/RHC 073 and GRP searched the spot not found any journey Ticket GRP made inquest panchanamma of unknown male dead body aged about 35 years GRP/RC registered a case in UDR.No.22/2013 U/S 174 Cr.P.C shifted to Govt. Hospital Raichur for PME and as per the spot observation deceased was fall down from unknown running train by foot board travelling journey. During the course of enquiries ASIPF/YG collected the Daily dairies of YG_OP on Dt 05.04-2013 made entries by the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 Con 676/YG OP and control message and joint observation at the spot. During the course of enquiries on 23.05.2014 ari. MS.R.Chowdary ASIPF/YG recorded statement of Sri. Vinod kumar S/o. Jagdayal Singh key man/Gang no.7/SADP who was on duty on 05.04.2013 from 06.30 hrs to 17.00 hrs, Where in he stated that at about 7.30 hrs one unknown male dead body aged about 35 years was lying at KM no.601/7-8 between UP & DN lines, between NRPD - CGTA stations immediately the same was informed to on duty SS/NRPD for further taking necessary action and he was clearly telling that as per the spot observation deceased body was fallen down from running train by foot board travelling journey. During the course of enquires on 24.05/2014 Sri.M.S.R.Chowdary ASIPF/YG recorded the statement of Sri. Amrit lal meene SS/NRPD @ SADP who was on duty on 05.04.2013 from 07.00 hrs to 11.00 hrs duty,Where in he stated that at about 8.30 hrs Vinod kumar keyman/Gang no.7 NRPD @SADP informed him that one unknowns male dead body aged about 35 yrs was lying between UP & DN lines between NRPD- CGTA stations the same was informed to all concerned and GRP/RC, and RPF/Yadgir. During the course of enquiries Sri.M.SR.Chowdary ASIPF/YG obtained the Ticket particulars from CBSR/YG and he stated that on 04.04.2013 ticket NO.01745392 of 04.04.2013 ticket commencing S.no 01745088 to 01745478-391 tickets was issued at JTBS (101) SRISAI on 04-04-2013 by srim ram JTBS/Yadgir During the course of enquires on 25.05 2014 Sri.MSR. Chowdary ASIPF/YG along with con 751 visited the deceased residence and caused the enquiries with brother Ravi kumar 29 years S/o Ramakrishna R/o Sadiapur working as police constable at Yadgir RAJKUMAR RAMAKRISHNA R/o Saidapur village his own brother and he stated that before death RAJKUMAR RAMAKRISHNA doing hotel in coolie work and before death on 01-04-2013 her brother along with family members went away from his residence to Yadgir for seeing of his grand mother. After that on 04-04-2013 they went to their relation function at Raichur along with family boarded in ladies compartment and her - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 brother boarded in general compartment taking ticket at Yadgir station and while travelling in journey fall down from running train in between NRPD-CGTA stations. And he is not suspecting of her brother death of any one During course of enquries on 26.05.2014 Sri.MSR.Chowdary ASIPF/YG caused the enquiry Bhagya w/o Rajkumar@Mudduraj (late) s/o Ramakrishna R/o Sadiapur present doing as coolie work who was died is Rly accident on 04/05.04.2013 was his husband. On 01-04-2013 she along with family members went to Yadgir for seeing of her mother in law due to she suffering with ill health. After 02 days 04-04-2013 her husband taking ticket at Yadgir station and she boarded in ladies compartment and her husband boarded in another general compartment in mail express at Yadgir Rly station for go to Raichur, after got down at Raichur station her husband was not found and immediately informed her relatives and searched for her husband and know the information her husband was fall down from running train between NRPD-CGTA stations. She is not suspect of her husband death of any one. FINDINGS:- The above enquiries revealed that the deceased person was not having any journey Ticket at the spot or authority from Railways and as per the spot observation the incident was happened at KM.NO.601/7-8 between NRPD-CGTA stations in the mid section and as per the spot observations deceased was fallen down from running train by foot board travelling. CONCLUSION: Hence, it is clear shows that RAJKUMAR @MUDDURAJ S/O RAMAKRISHNA having valid journey ticket, however he was run over by unknown train due to travelling on foot board which is not allowed an offence U/S 156 of Rly Act as such Railway is a responsible for such incident. Though he was having authorized RLY journey ticket. The incident occurred due to the deceased persons gross negligence. Hence as per the provisions contained in clause "C" of Section 124 A of Rly Act. No compensation can be payable by the Railway Administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to his own criminal act. Hence claiming of compensation does not arise." 15. It is seen that fundamentally the application came to be dismissed for the reason that the deceased - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 person was not having a journey ticket at the spot or from the railway authorities as per the spot observation incident having occurred in the midsection. Therefore, the tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and no untoward incident had occurred so also for the non-production of a valid train ticket. 16. The question is no more a res integra with regard to the death of a bonafide passenger travelling in a train as reported in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India V/s Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572. It is relevant to extract para 29 of the said judgment. "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 ticked 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 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 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." 17. The subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajni and another V/s Union of India and another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2182, it is relevant to extract para 14 and 15 of the said judgment. "14. Hence, we reaffirm that proceedings under Section 124-A of the Railways Act are not criminal trials demanding proof beyond reasonable doubt, but welfare statues are governed by the principles of preponderance and probabilities. Once the foundational facts of (i) possession or issuance of a valid ticket, and (ii) occurrence of an accidental fall from a train, are established through credible material, the statutory presumption of bona fide travel must operate in favour of the claimant. The Railways, as an instrumentality of the State, cannot defeat such claims by pointing to procedural imperfections in investigation or non- examination of formal witnesses. To hold otherwise would erode the beneficial character of the legislation and convert a social-justice remedy into a forensic obstacle race. 15. It is therefore declared that where an official railway inquiry or evidentiary record - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 verifies the issuance of a ticket corresponding to the date and route of an untoward incident, such verification shall constitute prima facie proof of bona fide travel, shifting the evidentiary burden on the Railway Administration. The absence of a seizure memo, or the inability of the police to preserve physical evidence, cannot by itself defeat a legitimate claim when the totality of circumstances supports the claimant’s version. This principle shall guide all future tribunals and High Courts in construing Section 124-A, so that the statutory right to compensation remains real, accessible, and consonant with the humanitarian purpose of the enactment. " 18. In view of the discussions made herein above and the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to how the applications will have to be treated on the death case or for the matter of injury cases, while a passenger travelling in a train, this Court is of the opinion that the claims tribunal has committed a serious illegality and error in dismissing the application. It is only on the ground that the deceased did not have a valid journey ticket on his body at the time of recovery and his own panchanama. The same is not sustainable. This Court deems it appropriate that the following substantial - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 questions of law would have to be framed for consideration. a. Whether the Railway claims tribunal is justified in holding that the non filing of missing complaint by the appellant No:1 throws suspicion about the travel of the deceased in the train when the body was found after 2 days of the journey? b. Whether the tribunal is justified in holding that the deceased did not travel in the train on the date of incident? c. Whether the tribunal is right in holding that even in the absence of any reliable rebuttal evidence led by the respondent that the deceased was not a bona-fide passenger? d. Whether the judgment of the tribunal is proper in holding that the appellants are not entitled to Compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-? 19. Learned counsel for both the parties addressed their arguments on the substantial questions of law after opportunity being provided. It is not in dispute that a body of an unknown person was found by the keyman one Manoj Kumar, Gang No.7, Narayanapet Road at 08.30 hours, which clearly states one unknown male body aged about 35 years lying between up line at KM.NO.601/7-8 between Narayanapet road and Chegunta station. After - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 conducting enquiry the Railway authority also found that deceased travelled from Yadgir to Raichur. As the train was overcrowded AW-1 boarded ladies compartment and the deceased boarded general compartment/coach. Deceased died during the journey due to fall from the train which would amount to 'untoward incident'. The next question is whether non-filing of a missing complaint would derail the case of the applicants? In my opinion, the answer would be an emphatic 'No'. Mere non-filing of a missing complaint would not dis-entitle the applicant to claim compensation for the death of a passenger traveling on board a Railway train. 20. It cannot be said that the deceased was not travelling in the railway train on the fateful day, as the enquiry conducted by the Railways proves the fact of travel. The next point is whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger. It is apparently seen that AW-1 adduced evidence got marked Exhibits - A-1 to A-13. A-3 - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 is the computerized ticket for two persons which has been ignored by the tribunal. 21. It is no doubt true that the applicant would be entitled to compensation only if the deceased was a bonafide passenger holding a valid ticket. This does not mean that the deceased should mandatorily possess in his custody as valid ticket. Any other member or passenger travelling along with the deceased could be permitted to carry the ticket of deceased and produce it when asked or questioned. 22. Exhibit-A3 is the valid ticket which is not disputed. Therefore, the deceased was a bonafide passenger who died due to an untoward incident as contemplated under Sections 123(c) and 124 A of the Railways Act. 1989. Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 reads as under: "untoward incident” means— (1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section (3) of the - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 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." Section 124 A of the Railways Act,1989 reads as under :- "124 A. Compensation on account of untoward incident.—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 of 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— - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 (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 untoward incident." 23. In the present case on hand the Railway administration does not deny the death of the deceased and the body being found in the railway track. It is also not denied that deceased was travelling on the said route, but a contention is taken that it was a self inflicted injury due to travel on foot board while on journey thereby to be a negligent act. However, this aspect is not proved or established by the respondent- Railways. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 24. Appellants have established the travel on the railway by the evidence of AW-1 and production of Ex.A-1 to A-13. There is no rebuttal to contradict the same. The claims tribunal is not required to see the aspect of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" as it is not dealing with a criminal case. Rather it is a case of preponderance of probability and keeping in mind the social welfare legislation. These aspects have been dealt by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rina Devi (supra) and also in the case of Rajni stated (supra). 25. In view of the discussions made herein above, I hold that: (i) Mere non filing of a missing complaint will not dis-entitle the applicants/appellants from claiming compensation for the death of deceased in an untoward incident when the appellant has established the deceased to be a bonafide passenger. - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 ii) Appellants have by oral and documentary evidence established and proved that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and died due to the untoward incident. iii) There is no rebuttal evidence of the respondent to show on the contrary that deceased did not die due to untoward incident. iv) Appellants are entitled to compensation for the death occurred due to untoward incident. 26. It is relevant to extract paragraph No.25 and paragraph No.26 of the judgment passed by this Court in MFA.No.200513/2015 dated 29.10.2022. "25. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-Railways is that the death of the deceased is due to self inflicted injury. The respondent was not able to produce any material to show the Tribunal or this Court that the death of the deceased has been caused due to his own act, which would amount self inflicted injury, which would come within the exception of Section - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 124A of the Railways Act to deprive the applicants of claiming the compensation. 26. Having considered the above set of defence and contention urged by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is apparent on the face of the record that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, who boarded the train from Chikkasugur to Lingeri and met with an untoward incident which would squarely come within the definition of Section 124A of the Railways Act. It is also necessary to mention here that the Railways Act has been enacted by the Parliament as a beneficial Legislation and when any enactment is made as a beneficial Legislation, it is made with an intent to benefit the aggrieved and accordingly, if all the acts are falling together and if two views are possible, then the view i.e. in the beneficial to the applicants, should be adopted and in this case, if the chain of events are seen leading to the death of the deceased, all the factors leading to the death clearly show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger who had travelled, with a valid ticket from Chikkasugur to Lingeri and died due to an untoward incident. Therefore, on overall consideration of the fact and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, who while traveling from Chikkasugur to Lingeri died due to an untoward incident. Accordingly, the first point raised by this Court is answered in favour of the applicants." 27. Being satisfied with the contentions taken up by the learned counsel for the appellants and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 of India V/s Rina Devi; Rajni and another V/s Union of India and another as stated herein supra, the application deserves to be allowed by setting aside the judgment rendered by the claims tribunal. Accordingly, I pass the following order. ORDER 1) The appeal is allowed. 2) The impugned order of the claims tribunal is also set aside. Consequently, the application filed by the claimant is allowed. Applicants shall be entitled to compensation of the maximum amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 6% from the date of the accident i.e. 04.04.2013 till date of the order. 3) The apportionment shall be as under: 40% - to the wife who is the applicant No.1. - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30366 MFA No. 6501 of 2019 30% - to the children who are applicant Nos.2, 3 and 4. 30% - to the mother who is applicant No.5. 4) Respondent shall deposit the compensation amount within six weeks. Upon deposit of the compensation amount, entire amount shall be released in accordance to the apportionment made herein. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31