1. This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act challenging the judgment and order passed by the Railway Claim Tribunal Ahmedabad in O.A.No.2015 / 0339 whereby the Railway Claims Tribunal discussed the claim of an amount for compensation towards injuries sustained by the claimant.

2. The facts in nutshell are that on 07.01.2015, the claimant was travelling from Bavla to Dholka in Train No.52939 and the said train, according to claimant, when he entered into the compartment of train, because of full of crown, he stood near door passages and when train about to reach Bavla passing through near Km.52/0-1 at Bavla, Railway station, his leg slipped and he fell down from the train at Point No.107, as a consequence of which he sustained multiple injuries and lost his fingners of leg and other minor injures on his person. Initially, he was treated at Bavla Health Center and thereafter had been taken to VS Hospital for further treatment.

3. The learned Tribunal, after permitting both the parties to lead the evidence, was pleased to dismiss the claim petition firstly on the ground that claimatn was travelling without ticket and secondly he attempted to commit sucide as per the terstimony of witness Javsingh Katara, Pointman at Bawla, which attributed to sustain injuries.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Ratin Raval for the applicant and learned advocate Ms.Amin for the Union of India.

5. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Raval that the affidavit is filed by the appellant to submit that he has purchased the ticket but he has lost during transit and secondly he would submit that concept of of 'negligence' has not placed in an accident which takes place within the railway precincts and it is only required to consider that whether the untoward incident has happened or not.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim of the claimants.

7. Per contra, learned advocate Ms.Amin for the Union of India would submit that according to the statement of eye- witness, it is the claimant's negligence and because of his negligence only he sustained injuries and, therefore, it is submitted that learned tribunal has noted that it is act of dead evil suicidal act committed by the claimant which has caused injuries. It can be defended as self-inflicted injury and, therefore, Railway Tribunal is right in denying the compensation.

8. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and considering the impugned judgment as well as record annexed with this appeal, at the outset the first contention of the Tribunal that the claimant was not bona fide passenger is truly covered by decision in the case of Rajni & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 986 wherein in paras:11 to 14, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

          "11. This Court in the case of Doli Rani Saha vs. Union of India', has 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. It has been further held: -

          "15. From the recapitulation of the various judicial pronouncements leading to the present appeal, it can be seen that the primary issue is whether the deceased was travelling on the train in question. In Rina Devi (Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572: (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 198) 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." (emphasis supplied)

          16. 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.

          17. Further, the report of the 10 indicates the details mentioned in the post-mortem report. It states that the cause of death was due to an injury sustained on the head and that all injuries were antemortem and caused by "blunt force impact". It also states that forty-eight to seventy-two hours had passed since the time of death."

          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 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 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 nonproduction 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 leamed 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."

9. It is no one's case that untoward incident occurred within the railway precincts. Thus the fact is established that in that way when the claimant, who was in issuance of valid ticket, files affidavit before the tribunal that he was possessing ticket, the burden would be shifted to railway to deny the same by leading credible evidence. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the such a hyper-technical approach that frustrates the object of providing relief to victims must be eschewed. In that way, the first contention weighed with the Railway Tribunal does not sustain and requires to be set aside.

10. Insofar as second contention that act of claimant as self-inflicted injuries is concerned, such finding is against the object of Railways Act, 1989. The Railway Tribunal was required to remain constraint within Sections 123 and 124(A) of the Act and to find out whether any untoward incident took place in precincts or not. It is nobody's claim that claimant sustained injuries while he was boarding or de-boarding from train. Therefore, the railway authority is responsible to pay the compensation.

11. For the forgoing reasons, the present Appeal stands allowed. Impugned order dated 17.11.2017 passed by the Railway Tribunal in O.A.No.2015 / 0339 is hereby quashed and set aside. Case No. O.A.No.2015 / 0339 is remanded back to Railway Tribunal for the purpose of deciding appropriate compensation to be awarded to the claimant.

12. The aforesaid proceedings shall be carried out within eight weeks from receipt of this order.