1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 by the appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 08.07.2003 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, in Claim Application No.OA9800052.

2. Brief facts borne out from the impugned order are that, on 05.01.1998, the deceased-Abbasali Dareshali Sheikh, was traveling as a bonafide passenger in Surat Railway Passenger Train No.113 Down from Vyara to Dharangaon. At the time of accident, he was allegedly pushed from behind due to rush of passengers and fell near Vyara Railway Station, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injury. Consequently, Abbasali Sheikh, succumbed to the injuries during the treatment at the hospital.

          2.1 It is averred that Station Master (S.M.), Vyara, informed the GRP, Vyra, and thereafter, GRP Vyra prepared the Inquest Panchnama, Panchnama of place of occurrence, Post-mortem report etc. The ticket number was also pleading in the claim petition and was subsequently produced in evidence. Initially, the claim petition was allowed by judgment and order dated 05.01.1999, and the claimants were granted Rs.4,00,000/- with 12% interest.

          2.2 The Union of India challenged the said judgment and order passed by the Railway Tribunal by filing First Appeal No.326 of 1999. The Division Bench of this Court, having observed that the Union of India was not given an opportunity to lead the evidence to rebut the case of the claimant, allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India, by its decision dated 21st March, 2003 and remanded the matter to the learned Railway Tribunal for fresh consideration.

          2.3 Pursuant thereto, the Railway Tribunal permitted the Union of India to lead evidence; however, it subsequently dismissed the claim petition by judgment and order dated 8th July, 2003, holding that the claimant failed to prove that the deceased Abbasali Sheikh was a bonafide passenger, that he fell from the train, and the incident fall within the definition of an "untoward incident."

          2.4 Being aggrieved, the original claimant is before this Court by way of the present appeal.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Dharmesh Shah for the appellant and learned advocate Ms.Archana Amin for the respondent.

4. What can be noticed is that, while passing the impugned judgment, the Railway Tribunal failed to consider the appearance report at Ex.9, wherein, in the Accidental Death Report (Aksmat Maut Report), it is specifically stated that the incident occurred while the deceased was attempting to board a running train. The ticket of the deceased was also placed on record. The evidence on record presents a direct conflict: on one hand, the claimant asserts that the deceased died while boarding the train, whereas on the other hand, it has been deposed that no untoward incident was reported. Considering the object and purport of the Railways Act, more particularly, when the claimant has produced the ticket to establish that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, and further in light of the preparation of the Inquest Panchnama and Panchnama of the Place of occurrence by the GRP, Vyara (and not by the Regular Police), it clearly indicates that incident occurred within the railway premises.

5. At this juncture, I may refer to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajni and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in (2025) Livelaw SC 986, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to its earlier decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572, as well as, in the case of Kamukai and Ors Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2023) 19 SCC 116, In para 9, 12, 13 and 14 thereof, reads as under:-

          "9.The legal position is not in dispute: Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 embodies a no-fault regime for "untoward incidents", but compensation remains predicated on the victim being a "passenger". For present purposes, Explanation (ii) to Section 124-A would be relevant in the background of same having been denied by railway authorities. It reads as follows:

          "Explanation (ii) -- 'passenger' includes 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." (emphasis supplied) In Union of India v. Rina Devi (supra), this Court affirmed that compensation under Sections 124/124-A is payable "whether or not there has been wrongful act, neglect or fault" and clarified two facets namely: (i) the regime is one of strict (no-fault) liability, with exceptions confined to the proviso to Section 124-A; and (ii) mere non- recovery of a ticket from the victim's person is not ipso facto fatal where the claimant lays a credible prima facie foundation, upon which the onus may shift to the Railways. The central inquiry, therefore, is whether the appellants had first discharged the threshold burden of proving the fact that deceased was a bonafide passenger of the Train No.12465 (Indore to Ujjain) so as to trigger any shifting of onus on the railway authorities.

          12.Though Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Railways has made a fervent plea to contend that the finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the suspicious circumstances of the railway tickets relied upon is sufficient to discard the claim, we are not impressed by the said submission for reasons more than one. Firstly, the initial burden which is cast on the claimants to prove that the deceased had travelled in the train has been discharged by the sworn statement made by first claimant (wife of deceased). Secondly, the High Court by relying upon the report of DRM report (R/1) has arrived at a conclusion that death of 1 st claimants husband would fall within the purview of expression 'untoward incident' as defined under Section 124 (A) of the Act; Thirdly, the railway ticket which formed part of the police report stood unrebutted; Fourthly, the very same report also disclosed the Chief Booking Supervisor, Indore had verified the ticket produced alongwith the report of the police and certified that ticket had been issued from Indore Station. This would clearly satisfy the requirement of the expression 'passenger' as contemplated under Clause (ii) to Explanation to Section 124 (A) of the Act and deceased being declared as a 'passenger' travelling in the train. This view also gets fortified by the judgment of the coordinate bench in the case of Kamukayi and Others vs. Union of India and Others, whereunder it has been held: -

          "9. ............................................... By the explanation of the said section clarifying about "passenger", it would include 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.

          10. This Court in Rina Devi [Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 198] has explained the burden of proof when body of a passenger is found on railway premises. While analysing the said issue, this Court has considered the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raj Kumari v. Union of India [Raj Kumari v. Union of India, 1992 SCC OnLine MP 96] and the judgments of the Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India [Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 101] , the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi v. Union of India [Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi v. Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine AP 828] and also considered the judgment of this Court in Kamrunnissa v. Union of India [Kamrunnissa v. Union of India, (2019) 12 SCC 391 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 613] and in para 29 concluded as thus : (Rina Devi case [Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 198] , SCC p. 588) "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 4 (2023) 19 SCC 116 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.""

          (emphasis supplied)

          13. In the light of the above, we are of the considered view that the High Court had faulted in affirming the finding of the Railways Claims Tribunal whereunder the claimants petition had been rejected for non- production of a seizure memo of the ticket and for non-examination of the investigating officer, which is and was the main thrust of argument canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for the Railways. This reasoning ignores the consistent judicial line that the absence of formal seizure or witness examination does not, by itself, negate bonafide travel when other material evidence substantiate the claim. Mere technical irregularities or lapses in procedure should not defeat a legitimate claim under a welfare statue, like the Railways Act, 1989. Particularly Chapter XIII which deals with liability of railway administration for death and injury to passenger due to accident. A Hyper technical approach which would frustrate the object of providing relief to victims of railway accidents should be eschewed. The insistence on a formal seizure memo would amount to importing standard of proof which normally is sought for in a criminal trial.

          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 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.

5. It is useful to refer to the judgment of Doli Rani Saha vs. Union of India reported in (2004) 9 SCC 656, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the burden of proof would shift to the Railways once, the claimant-appellant filed an affidavit stating the facts and adverting to the report arising from the investigation conducted by the Railway Authorities.

6. In view of the above, according to this Court, the Railway Tribunal has committed a serious and manifest error in rejecting the claim of the claimant/s. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award is quashed and set aside. The award passed on 05.01.1999 at first instance is restored. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court/Tribunal.

7. At this juncture, learned advocate Ms.Amin, submits that the awarded amount has already been deposited before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court shall verify the same, and if such deposit is found to have been made, disburse the amount to the claimant/s, after following due procedure.