JUDGMENT :

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the original applicant, challenging the judgment and award passed in Claim Application No. OA(IIu)/NGP/2015/0291, passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, on 01-02-2018, whereby the claim for compensation filed by the present appellant came to be dismissed. [Parties are referred as per their nomenclature before the Tribunal.]

2. Present appellant had claimed that he had boarded Mumbai-Secunderabad Devgiri Express, Train No.17057 from platform no.02 of Nanded Railway Station, in the morning time of 10-11-2014. He was supposed to go to Umri. However, due to heavy rush in the train, he stood near the door of the compartment. When the train was entering Umri Railway Station, due to sudden jerk to the running train, he was thrown out and slipped from the train, as a result of which, he fell down between platform and the running train. His right leg and left hand got cut and he became unconscious. He was immediately admitted to Government Hospital at Umri and then shifted to J.J. Hospital at Mumbai for further treatment. As he has suffered injuries because of the train accident, he had filed the said application for compensation.

3. The respondent - railway contested the claim. It was contended that the injuries suffered by applicant are not arising out of 'untoward incident' defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. It was stated that no such incident causing injury to the applicant within the meaning of Section 124(a) of the Railways Act had taken place and, therefore, the claim application itself is not maintainable. Other averments in the application have been denied. It was specifically contended that the applicant is not entitled to get any amount of compensation.

4. Taking into consideration the rival contentions, parties have led oral as well as documentary evidence. After hearing both sides, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the applicant is not a bona fide passenger of the train on the relevant day. So also, he has not received injuries in any untoward incident and, therefore, as aforesaid, the claim application was dismissed. Hence, present appeal.

5. Heard learned Advocate Mr. P.S. Agrawal appearing for the appellant/original applicant. So also, heard learned Advocate Mr D.V. Soman appearing for the respondent.

6. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant, that the applicant has produced the original ticket at Exhibit A-1 to show that he had purchased the ticket and he was a bona fide passenger. In fact, when he had entered the railway station platform, he was supposed to take ticket and the railway authorities had not detected him as a passenger travelling without ticket. Therefore, an inference can be drawn that he was travelling with valid ticket. In order to support his submissions, he has relied on the decision in Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & others, (2009) Supp AIR SC 383, wherein it has been held that "The expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive and not literal interpretation should be given to the expression." Further, in Union of India Vs. Bimala wd/o. Pintho Tudu & others, (2012) 3 MhLJ 883, this High Court, Bench at Nagpur, has held that "Fact that the deceased was not detected as passenger travelling without ticket, would give rise to an inference that he was travelling with valid ticket. Unless the negative is proved or there is evidence, may be, circumstantial in nature, that the deceased was not holding valid ticket, it would be desirable, to presume that deceased was authorised passenger." Further, in Union of India Vs. Nandabai w/o. Sheshrao Dangat & others, (2015) 6 MhLJ 295, this Court, Bench at Nagpur, has observed, that